Confessions of a "Short Timer"

This is a follow-up to the "Let Go, Move On" entry posted last Wednesday, June 22.

On Monday I officially requested a transfer within the agency I work for, the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning (DRP). More specifically, I requested a transfer from the Zoning Enforcement I Section within the Land Use Regulation Division (LURD) into the (new) Housing Section within the Advance Planning Division (APD).

Allow me to explain some things for my readers who do not work at DRP. The agency is responsible for regulating land use and property development within the unincorporated areas of the County, which are those areas not under the jurisdiction of an incorporated city (such as City of Los Angeles, City of Long Beach, City of Pasadena, etc.). The LURD is concerned with the "here and now" of planning and development - in addition to being responsible for Zoning Enforcement, where I've worked for nearly 4 years, LURD is responsible for operating our "public counter," where constituents can ask questions about Zoning or submit property development plans for our approval. LURD is also responsible for Field Offices, which offer services similar to the public counter but in locations closer to constituents than the Civic Center (Los Angeles County is quite large). The APD is at the opposite end of the spectrum, concerned with the "future" of planning and development. The APD is responsible for updating the County's General Plan and Zoning Code to ensure that future land use and property development meet the County's projected needs and its policies.

Allow me to explain things further for my readers who are not "professional planners" in the State of California. California State Law requires each local jurisdiction (city and county) to have a General Plan with at least 7 required "elements" that address different aspects of future needs. One of the required elements is the Housing Element, which (ostensibly) demonstrates how a local jurisdiction will meet "the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community." California State Law requires that a local jurisdiction's Zoning Code and policies be consistent with the General Plan - this means local jurisdictions must actively implement the policies contained in their Housing Element. This entails the adoption of laws and policies to actively encourage the creation of more "affordable housing."

Affordable housing is an urgent issue throughout California, especially in the major metropolitan areas along the Pacific coast (San Francisco/"Bay Area", Los Angeles/"Southern California", and San Diego). Housing prices have risen over the last 8 years at a rate far exceeding wages and inflation: the median price of a house in California has risen from $177,270 in 1996 to $450,990 in 2004. Even if a large part of this run-up in prices is due to a so-called "housing bubble" propped up by relatively low mortgage interest rates in this timeframe, there are 2 other factors making housing more expensive in Southern California: 1) Population growth (approximately 5 million residents in 1950, approximately 16.5 in 2005, approximately 22.6 projected in 2025) and 2) Less "developable" land. Since 1950, land development activities have shifted from Los Angeles County to Orange County and recently to the "Inland Empire," San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Development in the remaining open space of the "urban" counties is difficult - battles in the fringe over Ahmanson Ranch and Newhall Ranch and early controversy over Centennial (closer to Bakersfield than L.A.!) demonstrate that the era of master-planned "new towns" on the unincorporated edges (such as Valencia and Irvine) is near its end. Regardless, affordable housing must be created, so it must take the form of "redevelopment" in existing neighborhoods.

Affordable housing is also a contentious issue, especially as it relates to redevelopment. Many local jurisdictions have asserted they don't "need" affordable housing at all, and even those that acknowledge they do have done little to update their antiquated Zoning Codes that encourage highly segregated, suburban-style low density developments. The hackneyed cry of NIMBY -"Not in my Back Yard" - applies here, as existing residents seem convinced that a new affordable housing development in their neighborhood will be like Pruitt-Igoe. Politicians are pressured to "protect" these neighborhoods from "incompatible" higher-density developments. The rationale for "protection" is based largely on design concerns; I happen to believe if planners begin to advocate for form-based codes to apply to future redevelopment efforts, design concerns would be addressed. If residents and politicians still cry for "protection," planners will be able to kindly but bluntly ask "protection from what?" The history of cities demonstrates that the most vibrant, stable communities are home to a wide range of people in a mix of housing types...all of tomorrow's neighborhoods must contain an ample supply of both "affordable" and "market rate" housing. Yesterday's suburbs are today's slums; today's suburbs must not be tomorrow's slums.

Having spent nearly 4 years "patrolling the streets" of South Los Angeles, I see tremendous opportunity for redevelopment there that can include affordable and market rate housing along with modern commercial space and civic amenities. This opportunity lies primarily along transit corridors. The Metro Rail Blue and Green Lines traverse South Los Angeles, but there are also numerous east-west and north-south major "boulevards," laid out in a grid pattern that are well served by bus transit, including several Metro Rapid routes with more in the planning stages. It is ironic that the "inner-city" of Los Angeles is a sprawling, suburban area largely comprised of quaint bungalows and duplexes with varying architectural styles that date from the 1920's into the 1940's and today are largely well-maintained. South Los Angeles today is not like South Bronx in the 1970's, or even like the "wasteland" many in Southern California percieve it to be - there are not vast stretches of abandoned buildings; nearly all are occupied, many by proud owners. An influx of investment has begun to occur 13 years after the 1992 riots gave "South Central Los Angeles" the worst international publicity imaginable.

While South Los Angeles has many lower-density residential streets that should remain intact (dropping higher-density apartment buildings in the middle of them would be a mistake), the major "boulevards" they feed into are lined with property that is "underutilized" by any standard. These strips were the primary targets of the 1992 riots and many haven't recovered. They contain vacant lots, classic L.A. "taxpayer blocks" (1920's-era commercial buildings) that haven't aged well and weren't meant to be "permanent," fast-food joints, a concentration of liquor stores far greater than exists in most Southern California communities, and an unfathomable number of auto repair shops, auto body and painting shops, and used-car lots. Certainly there is a demand for these types of services, but they seem to be over-represented. From a code enforcement standpoint, the concentration of liquor stores in unincorporated areas is problematic because many are magnets for loitering, drinking in public, urinating in public, pandhandling, and other crimes but it wasn't until 1992 that the Zoning Code required special permits for liquor stores that allowed for a public hearing before the Regional Planning Commission and for specific conditions on their locations and operations that could be actively enforced. Liquor stores built before 1992 (the great majority) cannot be regulated at all through Zoning. Many auto repair businesses and used-car lots operate on properties that are too small to accomodate their volume of business and are poorly maintained (crude fencing and signage, no off-street parking for customers, unsightly outdoor storage of auto parts, equipment, and wrecked vehicles, auto repair being done outside of a building). Some vacant lots are used solely for "outdoor storage," which is illegal in Commercial zones, while others become magnets for illegal dumping and impromptu outdoor swapmeets, also illegal in Commercial zones.

The answer is to unlock the development potential along South Los Angeles' boulevards; high-quality, mixed-use, medium and high-density development must be actively pursued there in order to revitalize the commercial sector, create thousands of units of market rate and affordable housing, and utilize the existing transit infrastructure. By making redevelopment along the boulevards a priority (and easy to do from a regulatory standpoint), redevelopment pressure will be taken off existing South Los Angeles residential neighborhoods, and they, in turn, will benefit from proximity to the "new and improved" boulevards and experience further revitalization. This may not be feasible through changes in Zoning and policy alone - the government may need to intercede with redevelopment authority to "condemn" properties (i.e. to "take" them via "eminent domain") in order to assemble larger, more "developable" parcels. The reason I think this might be a good strategy is because I've seen it work at Hollywood Boulevard and Western Avenue (once as "blighted" as South Central, now home to a Metro Red Line station, a block from where I've lived for over 2 years). See it for yourself:

Metro Hollywood Apartments, a mixed-use building placed atop the Red Line station

Hollywest Promenade, a shopping center and senior housing complex across Hollywood Boulevard from the Red Line station

Hollywest Promenade, "interior view" showing 4 levels of senior housing atop a Ross Dress for Less atop a Ralphs supermarket atop 2 levels of subterranean parking

I think I have demonstrated here why I am interested in the Housing Section as well as the perspective and ideas I hope to bring to it. Of course, I really don't know a thing about housing policy, but I'm anxious and willing to learn. I see myself eventually being a (re)developer, building projects like these in urban neighborhoods, so learning about housing policy, finance, and development would benefit me. But to be honest, I'm not at all confident that I'll get the transfer I asked for.

I was quite nervous about assertively communicating my desire to exit the code enforcement arena with DRP management. I chose to be entirely candid: I stated that I am leaning towards going to grad school, quite possibly on the East Coast and wasn't planning to stay at DRP for longer than 1 or 2 more years, that I was getting "burned out" on code enforcement and needed a change and new challenges, and that if I didn't get some kind of transfer - any transfer - out of Zoning Enforcement, I'd start looking for another job. Management was very understanding of my position and supportive of my desire to broaden my knowledge and experience. Nothing's official yet, but the feedback I am recieving is that a transfer is imminent; I've been told that I may be a "short timer" in Zoning Enforcement (I think this is the bureaucratic equivalent of "lame duck").

The reality is that I've declared myself "up for grabs," and in my nearly 4 years at DRP I have developed a stellar reputation (backed up by my own self-promoting propaganda, namely 2 presentations given to the entire DRP staff, one earlier this month, the other last December). There is not a Section Head in the agency that does not know me nor is there one that would not want me on "their team." I've already had one Section Head approach me (who manages a Section I want nothing to do with) and tell me he knows I've requested a transfer and that management's task was to give me an assignment that would "adequately challenge me," the implication being that his Section would. I have no idea if I'll even land in the APD, which is fine because the decision is not in my hands and I'm sure I can "live" with any new assignment given to me. I am actually quite relaxed about it, since the hard part was going to management and asking to "get out" of Zoning Enforcement (and, practically speaking, the entire LURD) altogether. The only way I could "lose" in this situation would be to have not said anything at all and continue to work at a job that I was rapidly losing my passion for.

Working in Zoning Enforcement has been a tremendous experience (I'll explore it later on this blog), but it is definitely time for me to move on. I must embrace my ambition and potential.

I should find out about my transfer within a few weeks.