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.

Be Patient!

>From: "Anonymous"
>To: mitch_glaser@yahoo.com
>Subject: [Paradox Unbound] 6/29/2005 03:25:38 PM
>Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
>
>it's wednesday... where've ya been?
>
>--
>Posted by Anonymous to Paradox Unbound at 6/29/2005 03:25:38 PM

"Anonymous" is right...I've fallen off the blogging train. Perhaps I set unreasonable expectations by way of my flurry of posts last week. I cannot commit to posting something every day, but I enjoy blogging, have recieved a lot of positive feedback, and want to make "Paradox Unbound" provocative and engaging.

I just want to advise everyone that I have a "compressed" work schedule...10 hours a day, 4 days a week. I leave my apartment between 6:30 and 7 in the morning and don't get back until between 6:30 and 7 in the evening. So I get home quite tired...I don't often feel like sitting in front of a computer and writing (sitting in front a computer and playing Sim City 4, that's a different story). In addition, I've been trying to break my habit of drinking some beers every night when I get home...I did a good job last week; this week, not so much (I'm trying to cut out drinking althogether, but it's not easy). As you might imagine, drinking diminishes any inclination I might have to post. And despite the fact that I'm writing this at work, I don't want to get in the habit of blogging on County time. So expect to see most of my posts on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays.

Expect these posts soon:
1) An update on my desire for a career change (a change seems imminent!)
2) A "personal" post concerning "haters," "thick skin," and the need for positive energy
3) My reaction to President Bush's speech concerning Iraq on Tuesday
4) My description of L.A. Mayor-Elect Anotonio Villaraigosa's inauguration tomorrow; it's going to be a "big deal" for lots of reasons and I plan to attend

So bear with me..."Paradox Unbound" is just getting started!

Phoenix to Use Eminent Domain For Downtown ASU Campus

Some timely news from my hometown:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0625phxcondemn.html
Text of article follows.

I want to thank Thurman for sending this. Phoenix is desperately trying to build an urban core, which it's never had. Significant investments have been made over the last 15 years - the Arizona Center office and retail complex, the new City Hall, the new Arizona Republic headquarters, the America West Arena, the Bank One Ballpark, the Dodge Theater, the B of A Tower/Collier Center, the AMC 24 at Arizona Center, the new Phelps Dodge headquarters, the T-Gen genomics complex. A large expansion of the Civic Plaza (convention center) is underway, as is the construction of the Valley's light rail line, which will serve downtown. None of these investments has proven to be the "magic bullet" - perhaps a downtown ASU campus is, if only because it would finally inject a large population and a venerable institution, resulting in 24-hour vitality. Of course, it should surprise no one that the property owners are concerned about having their property "ripped off."

=====

Phoenix set to seize 5 acres for downtown ASU campus

Ginger D. Richardson
The Arizona Republic
Jun. 25, 2005 12:00 AM

Phoenix plans to seize nearly 5 acres to build the new Arizona State University Downtown Phoenix Campus.

After months of failed negotiations, the city's attorneys filed the condemnation notices this week in Maricopa County Superior Court against eight downtown property owners. The land the city wants ranges from vacant parking lots to a three-story office building. More filings are expected. The city anticipates that it will need to use eminent domain to acquire a little more than 25 percent of the campus.

"We will continue to negotiate with people, of course," Assistant City Manager Sheryl Sculley said. "But we do have to proceed and move forward on this."

The City Council authorized the use of eminent domain, which allows governments to take private property by force, more than six months ago to assemble land for the campus.

But even though the move was expected, it is doing little to cool the ire of those about to lose their property.

"It's pretty clear . . . that the city has carte blanche to take the land," said landowner Norman Fox, referring to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday that further strengthened the law that allows cities to seize homes and businesses in the name of redevelopment. "But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be treated fairly."

The most critical case involves the Park Place building at 500 N. Third St., which is slated to become ASU's College of Nursing. City officials say they need to start renovation work by fall in time for the first classes in August 2006.

"We are really up against a deadline here," Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said of the building. "We can't miss this opportunity."

The city also filed an order asking for immediate possession of that property and all the other parcels. It wasn't clear Friday how soon Phoenix could take control of them, but City Attorney Gary Verburg said he hopes Phoenix will have possession of at least Park Place by the end of summer.

"We can take possession as soon as the judge says we can take possession," he said. "We can fight about value later."

Property owners must be served notice of the condemnation filings and then will have 20 days to respond before a hearing can be scheduled. However, almost everyone agrees that the city has a legal right to take the property. The fight is expected to be over how much Phoenix will pay for it.

In total, the ASU campus will stretch over about 20 acres of prime real estate. The school will be bordered by Van Buren Street on the south, First Avenue on the west, Second and Third streets on the east and Fillmore Street on the north.

The city already has purchased some of the land; other parcels are being developed under public-private deals that are being worked out with property owners.

Phoenix has hired an outside firm to appraise each of the properties being condemned. According to records obtained Friday by The Arizona Republic, the city is offering anywhere from $35 to $115 per square foot for each property.

Some question whether those are fair prices.

Anthony Olivieri, for example, said he bought some land and a commercial building on Central Avenue for $490,000 back in 2003. On April 1, the city offered him about $440,000.

"I wouldn't say that I am being treated unfairly, but it does bother me the way that the city is handling this whole thing," said Olivieri, who hoped to build a high-rise development on the site in a partnership.

Others are more blunt.

"All I know is that I've been notified in writing that the city is going to take my land, and I am not happy about it," said Leon Woodward, who owns a building rented by a dry cleaner and a parking lot at 501 and 509 N. First St.

Woodward's case wasn't among this week's filings, but the city is already preparing an appraisal of his land to be used in condemnation proceedings.

Woodward said he expects that the appraisals will be too low and vows that he will start a public campaign against the city's upcoming bond program if he isn't treated fairly.

The city hopes to roll $233 million worth of land acquisition and associated costs for the ASU campus into the bond package, which goes before voters in March. If voters don't approve it, it will make it difficult for the city and ASU to build the second phase of the campus, which is expected to have 8,000 students.

Woodward and other landowners wouldn't say specifically what they thought their land is worth. But they think a fair market rate is well over $100 a square foot. They cite recent sales of downtown property that netted $120 to $144 per square foot.

"Why can't the landowners hire their own appraisers to come up with a value that we think is fair?" asked Norman Fox, who owns a 7,250-square-foot parcel along Central Avenue. The land is vacant, but Fox said he had wanted to partner with Olivieri to develop the site. The city has offered him $40 a square foot.

"I am willing to give up the high-rise for the progress," he said. "But don't steal it from me."

Phoenix officials contend that their offers are fair. They believe that all the announcements about downtown, from the university campus to a $600 million renovation of Phoenix Civic Plaza to light rail, have fueled rampant speculation. Officials don't believe they should be victimized by the artificially inflated costs.

But they do say they will continue to negotiate with landowners.

The Greatest Retailing Machine Ever Devised

Most people know that one of my interests is retailing and retail chains. I am a member of the "Remembering Retail" group on Yahoo! For the last week or so, a lively discussion has been occuring on the group's message board concerning the many regional discount chains that have closed shop over the last 10 years (Venture, Bradlees, Zayre, Caldor, Clover, Ames, etc.). The post that started it all asked a simple question: Why did these chains go out of business? A big part of the answer, of course, is Wal-Mart.

This morning I added my 2 cents to the discussion. Since I doubt anyone reading this blog is a member of the group, I've decided to copy my post here:

I have observed during the course of this discussion and many others on this board a sentiment that Wal-Mart's days are numbered, that it has reached its peak and is destined to soon enter the retail "graveyard." I don't agree - Wal-Mart is going to be around for a long time, and it's not nearly as big as it can (and will) get.

What makes Wal-Mart different from Bradlees, Caldor, Venture, Ames, Zayre, Kmart, and all other discounters before it is that it refuses to grow complacent, as those chains did. Wal-Mart is in a constant state of expansion, which entails a constant re-evaluation of its existing stores. Wal-Mart will not operate a store that is too small or in a bad location. Wal-Mart is constantly expanding, relocating, or closing obsolete stores - other chains never did and found themselves with a chain of stores time had passed by.

"Njyogibear" brings up an excellent point - not only does Wal-Mart make sure its stores meet today's needs, but it stocks them with merchandise in a way no one else can. This is Sam Walton's legacy: efficient distribution. Wal-Mart adopted computerized distribution in the early 1970's while other discounters continued to operate in the "stone age." Even before it became the nation's largest retailer, Wal-Mart knew how to get the "upper hand" in dealing with its vendors, even to put the "squeeze" on them and pass the concessions and savings it recieved directly to its customers. Now that it's so big, every company must have its products on their shelves or risk going out of business.

Before Sam died, he knew Wal-Mart would have to get into the food business in order to keep growing. Although his "Hypermart USA" experiment wasn't a resounding success, the lessons learned were applied to the Supercenter concept and, later, the Neighborhood Markets. Wal-Mart's effect on food retailing is only now being felt. The supermarket chains are running scared.

Today Wal-Mart is obsessed with entering urban markets, the "final frontier." Yes, it is running into resistance, but this doesn't mean the entire operation is in trouble. The well-publicized setbacks in New York City, Chicago, and L.A. are opportunities for Wal-Mart to regroup and refine its strategy. Wal-Mart does not give up, it just keeps pushing to be bigger and better.

Wal-Mart is the greatest retailing machine ever devised. Every segment of retail has felt the heat: local retailers and "mom and pops", competing discounters (most of which are gone), department stores (Wards is gone, Sears is on the run, May and Federated combined just to stay competitive), and supermarkets (Kroger, Safeway, and Albertsons have built empires that may no longer be "relevant"). Yes,there are ways to compete with Wal-Mart, but no one can "out-Wal-Mart" Wal-Mart. It is like no other retailer in the history of the world.

We all know Wal-Mart can't grow at its current pace forever, but it will continue to grow and will be around for a very long time. What should concern everyone is that its drive to lower prices threatens to drive down wages and living standards in cities throughout America. By refusing to pay a "living wage" and by buying a majority of their goods overseas because labor costs there are lower, they are threatening to make the United States into a Third World country. Our economy cannot be sustained by buying and selling things - we have to make things too.

Target remains competitive because it is perceieved as being more "upscale." Of course, Target is not different from Wal-Mart at all. Even though Target is growing (and is opening supercenters of its own), it is a much smaller retailer and will never be able to "catch up."

Kmart cannot compete at all - its reputation as a retailer cannot be salvaged. Although Kmart ostensibly acquired Sears, the motivation for the recent merger was for Sears to acquire Kmart's real estate and its expertise in categories such as pharmacy, pantry, HBA, and garden. Sears had already acquired about 50 former Kmarts before the merger in an effort to launch its "off mall" growth strategy; now it has the rest. I expect the Kmart name to be eliminated from the retail landscape within 5 years.

Sears may be able to compete with Wal-Mart, but it has to offer something decidedly different from Wal-Mart, Target, and Kmart. Sears was smart to recognize that if it continued to hitch its wagon to malls, they'd be gone soon. Not only are there very few malls being built every year, but many of them are becoming less viable and shutting down. Furthermore, the mall is not necessarily where Sears customers are or where they prefer to shop. The answer is to open freestanding stores. Like most on this board, I am very curious to see how the Sears Grand and Sears Essentials experiments play out, andI think a big concern is that Sears is "muddying" its brand - people will have a hard time viewing Sears mall stores, Sears Grand, and Sears Essentials as part of one retailer that they'll feel loyalty to. And Sears Grand and Sears Essentials can't be "like Wal-Mart,"they have to be different. I am not sure that offering Kenmore appliances will be enough. I will say this though - the Sears name is still good and has a good reputation, unlike Kmart - if they do a poor job executing this "off mall" push, they'll lose that advantage and will close shop very quickly.

Don't expect any new discount retailers to come along. The category is saturated.

Thoughts on Kelo v. New London

There is an inherent dichotomy (or paradox perhaps?) in how "the land" is regarded in this nation...it is both a commodity and a resource. This dichotomy is complicated by the concept of "property" in that every bit of "the land" must be "owned" by someone, whether it be a private individual or the state.

The issue of property weighed large in the Founding Fathers' minds. The Declaration of Indpendence states, in part: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" but this drew on John Locke's assertion that each man has "a power not only to preserve his property—that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men, but to judge of and punish the breaches of that law in others." We can infer that the "pursuit of Happiness" entails the "pursuit of property," in particular an "estate," physical landholdings.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution reads, in part: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Fourteenth Amendment further elaborated this concept by stating, in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Kelo v. New London, which concerned the issue of property rights, namely the right of the state to "take" private property for a "public use" through "eminent domain." At issue here was whether New London's redevelopment plan for the Fort Trumbull neighborhood constituted a public use. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court determined that the redevelopment could indeed be considered a public use and that the utilization of eminent domain was therefore justified.

The Founding Fathers' concerns about property were understandable, considering that the new United States of America was in large part a rejection of centuries of European fedualism. The concept of private property rights meshed nicely with the tenets of "Jeffersonian Democracy," which viewed the ideal United States as an "agrarian republic" of "yeoman farmers." Each man would be sovereign over his plot of land and would be able to provide for himself and his family, but would also be obligated to see his interests in and responsibilities for the stability and well-being of the larger nation. The great push westward, exemplified by Jefferson's engineering of the Louisiana Purchase, was a means by which more and more land could be acquired to house a growing nation of independent farmers. In this time and place, the "taking" of private property for "public use" could easily be limited to things such as roads, schools, and other things that were inarguably necessary for the common good of the nation as a whole.

A lot changed from the days of Jefferson up to 1920. The two most important developments were the "Industrial Revolution" and the related movement of the nation's populance to cities. 1920 is a pivotal year as the 1920 Census documented that more people lived in cities than in rural areas for the first time in United States history. The perception of property rights in relation to the powers of the government changed accordingly.

The first move towards a new era of property rights was the widespread adoption of zoning laws in cities during the 1920's. Zoning, in essence, is a set of regulations that are placed upon private property within a municipality's jurisdiction. The primary impetus for zoning was that the Industrial Revolution had made cities nearly unbearable places to live. The stated purpose of zoning was to "protect" residential districts from the intrusion of objectionable "nuisance" uses (mostly industrial in nature) in order to ensure a more orderly, healthful development of the community. The idea that cities had a right to impose such restrictions on property was a contentious one - the Supreme Court, though, declared it constitutional in the case of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. in 1926. Despite the fact that zoning is now commonplace and was deemed "constitutional" nearly 80 years ago, the concept is still contentious today - I know this well because my job for nearly 4 years has been to enforce the zoning law in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. People are still amazed and bewildered by the idea that the government can tell them what they can do with their private property without actually buying it outright - of course, I think the Founding Fathers would be too.

The "Great Depression" and the resultant "New Deal" launched by President Franklin D. Rooselvelt were transfiguring events in United States history. The program most pertinent to this discussion was the 1937 Housing Act, which placed the Federal Government in the housing business by enabling municipal jurisdictions to design, build, and manage "public housing" with Federal funds. In 1937, there was an obvious need for affordable, quality housing for the poor that the private sector was unable to provide. Tenements and shanty towns had long provided afforable housing, but they were viewed as undesirable, a "blight" on the cities.

The execution of the 1937 Housing Act did not entail the construction of "public housing" on vacant land, at least not in how it was executed by municipal jurisdictions; it entailed the elimination of "substandard" housing in order to construct "modern public housing," often through public acquisition of private property through eminent domain. Legitimacy had been given to the concept of "slum clearance, " i.e. the elimination of neighborhoods deemed "undesirable" by the state for a greater "public good." Of course, "slum" became a pejorative term and the motiviations of municipal jurisdictions who wished to eliminate "slums" were often duplicitous, disingenuous, and racist and/or classist in nature. Slums were defined as containing "blight" or being "blighted," a relative term if ever there was one. "Blight" meant (and still often means) the presence of poor people, people of color, or both.

The 1937 Housing Act, though well-intentioned, set a dangerous precedent. The 1949 Housing Act went much further, giving municipal jurisdictions authority to acquire land via eminent domain under the guise of "redevelopment," which did not necessarily entail the creation of affordable, quality housing. A lot had changed between 1937 and 1949, most importantly that we had fought and ostensibly "won" World War II. In many respects, I consider that war to be a far greater transfiguring experience for the United States than the Great Depression and New Deal. Europe and Asia were comparatively devastated; the United States became a "superpower" that was in a position to dominate world economics and politics (and, as we've only recently learned, a far better position than our primary "competitor" and "enemy" - the other "superpower" known as the Soviet Union). While we felt empowered to change and shape the world, we also felt empowered to shape and change our own "backyard," our nation's cities.

I tend to view the ensuing events through the prism of Los Angeles, which is representaive and instructive. Allow me to recommend "The Provisional City" which discuss this era in detail. In Los Angeles, as in many other cities, the 1949 Housing Act was viewed as a way to "redevelop" the city's "slums" into oases of modern public housing. But all that was to change. In the post-WWII environment of paranoia and "McCarthyism," the concept of "public housing" was seen as "un-American" and a harbringer of "creeping socialism." Furthermore, the economy had rebounded and well-organized private-sector builders such as Fritz Burns felt they could provide the city's necessary housing through mass-produced, mass-marketed subdivisions on the fringes of the city, such as Westchester, Panorama City, and Lakewood.

The two main L.A. neighborhoods scheduled for "slum clearance" and conversion to public housing were Bunker Hill and Chavez Ravine, both adjacent to "downtown." Bunker Hill had been the city's first "posh neighborhood," an area of grand Victorian homes that had become a "seedy" district of cheap hotels and "flophouses" well documented in Raymond Chandler novels of the era, whereas Chavez Ravine was an agricultural community largely inhabited by Mexican-Americans. The original intent was to eliminate both in order to create new, more "moral" communities of modern, public housing. The end result, however, was that Bunker Hill became the "new" central business district full of modern office towers - a wholesale defection from the historic Broadway and Spring Street corridors occured after the 1965 Watts Riots, and the old buildings were left abandoned and unoccupied until the adaptive reuse ordinance was passed in 1999. The story at Chavez Ravine was far more tragic - after clearing the area, the City of Los Angeles chose to sell the site to the Dodgers for $1 to build a grand baseball stadium. Many in the Latino community still resent this - I don't blame them at all.

Moving forward to 2005, the Supreme Court seems to be saying that not only were those earlier (questionable) "takings" of "blighted" property justified, but that the "taking" or property that is not necessarily "blighted" is also justified. Perhaps this is in recognition of the fact that "blight" is not a particularly useful term, but it also speaks to a municipality's right to decide its own economic destiny. Essentially the Court said that cities are in control of their own land use (in due deference to Euclid v. Ambler) and that the "economic development" of any portion of a city may be considerded a "public good" that will benefit all citizens of the city although some may be displaced (through increased taxes, and therefore, increased services). I am not sure if I agree.

I have become increasingly suspicious of the "planning and development" community's historic assertion that it knows what is best for its city's residents. Public housing was an utter failure - the best examples are Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis and Cabrini-Green in Chicago. Redevelopment was also a failure - the fact that L.A. is so fascinated with "filling in" the parking lots between Bunker Hill and the Civic Center to (at last) create a "Grand Avenue" is abundant evidence that moving "downtown" a few blocks to the west (closer to the Harbor Freeway) may have caused more problems than it sought to "solve." Do we really represent the "public" interest, or the interest of property owners and developers who wish to make obscene amounts of money with government sanction?

If the government decides it can take your property "with just compensation" in order to utlize it to its "highest and best use" in an economic sense, would you be "OK" with that? I doubt it. We have to question whether "public use" is synonomous with "highest and best use" in that local governments seem to disregard the value of (now scarce) land as a resource when considering the productivity of land as a commodity. I often think that the Native Americans who inhabited this land long before the Founding Fathers arrived had a far better understanding of the value of "land" than we do. It is a resource more than a commodity. Profit must take a back seat to sustainability.

A 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court implies an ideological divide that could very well be overcome by the appointments President George W. Bush could make between now and January 2009. The issue for urban planners, regardless of whether they agree with the decision, is to question their mandate, policies, and procedures. Are we helping to create a better United States, one that will better ensure that our cities can sacrifice individual gains so we may enable a common good? I am not convinced the Supreme Court thinks so (despite their decision in Kelo v. New London) - nor do I think so - so let's think of ways that we can convince people that the concepts of zoning and redevelopment can respect property rights and be relevant in the 21st Century.

Chain Reaction

When you start a blog you shouldn't be surprised if your thoughts, feelings, and observations are dissected and analyzed by others. Apparently I am quite quotable. I suppose this is actually the point of it all - the Internet is a forum for ideas and a conduit for expression. Now more than ever, we are able to tie ourselves into the greater realm of human experience, which can be amazingly diverse and consistent at the same time.

Let Go, Move On

The title of this post may be a simple and hackneyed phrase, but I suppose I've adopted it as my mantra these days.

For awhile I was mired in the lesser known "quarter-life crisis" so many of my contemporaries seem to have also encountered. For a year and a half, the most recent six months especially, I've felt stuck in place, knowing I was unhappy but too complacent to do anything about it.

About a month ago, I made a trip to the East Coast. I set out to spend 2 days in New York City, 2 in Philadelphia, and 2 in Washington D.C. Although I had a friend to visit in each of these cities, I traveled alone and spent most of the trip by myself. I haven't traveled much in my life, so I'm just now realizing its value. Being "outside myself" and "within myself" - in completely new and unfamiliar places but in my own company - had an effect on me that is hard to explain. I had high expectations for this little vacation, but I had no idea that it would change my life.

I came back to L.A. a "new man" with "new eyes." It felt like I had been gone for a month, and I was nearly ecstatic to see a palm tree at the Long Beach Airport, not to mention the great expanse of the Harbor Freeway with the brightly-lit cluster of modern high-rises we identify as "downtown" in the distance. But I realized something: L.A. is "ugly." I had been to three great cities where automobiles did not overwhelm the cityscape, where the timeless practices of urban design and civic art had not been abandoned, and where buildings were meant to be looked at and admired by pedestrians. The so-called "boulevards" of L.A. are designed to be viewed at a speed of at least 35 miles per hour, and they're not very attractive at that. I do love L.A. and accept it for what it is, but I can't say after 8 years I'm convinced it's "the" place for me. I think it says a lot that since graduating from USC I've chosen to live in 2 of only a handful of the dense, diverse, and urban neighborhoods in L.A. where I can walk to stores, restaurants, and a subway (well, "the" subway). Why not go live in a city where most of the neighborhoods meet that description? Where I can walk down the streets, feel the energy of human enterprise, and not feel threatened by the horseless carriage - where I can sit at a sidewalk cafe and not choke on exhaust fumes - where I can be uplifted by statues and public squares? I've always been an "urban" person, but having grown up in Phoenix, it's taken me a long time to realize what "urban" is and what environments appeal to me most.

I have decided I will leave L.A., not now or even soon, but decidedly so. I can always come back, and may. I want to move to the East Coast and see if I can handle weather different than the "eternal spring" here and not be obligated to own an automobile. But I realize I don't want another job out there, it's time to take a break from working. I can either be a bum, or I can be a grad student, the next best thing. The only problem with this plan is that I'm putting the cart before the horse in the sense that I'm going to grad school so I can live on the East Coast and take a break from work; not entirely sure what it is I should study. Law has crossed my mind and is quite compelling, but I need to take some time and really think through what kind of higher education will get me closer to my goals.

There have been countless realizations and decisions since then, but they are grist for future posts.

Today, though, I came to a realization that shook me but liberated me. I do not want to be a Zoning Enforcement Officer in Florence-Firestone anymore. In fact, I want to get out of code enforcement althogether - I'm "over it." On Graduation Day from USC in 2001 I would never have concieved that I would go on to do this job for nearly 4 years, enjoy it immensly, and be very successful at it, but if an envoy from the future told me this I would probably say it wasn't my dream job, it wasn't my ultimate plan. I realize that if I stay in place, the next steps are to be the Assistant Manager, then Manager, of the entire Zoning Enforcement Section - I don't want to be either of those. I feel I have gone as far as I can with code enforcement, it's become less and less "fun" and more and more stressful and demoralizing each day, so it's time to wrap up this experience before I loathe waking up in the morning and going to work.

Now I have to make some choices and decisions about my career and I can't pretend that some will have implications and consequences that might not be entirely pleasant. But I have to take a stand and be an advocate for what's in my best interest; no one else will do it for me. It's time to take responsibility for this and all other aspects of my life and to take action. The last 6 months I've been unhappy but inactive, allowing myself to sink deeper into self-pity and self-destructive behavior. I want that to be over. It's time to let go, move on.

Shout Out: G.D. Thurman

I should not proceed further without giving props to Gerald Thurman, a man who understands the power of the Internet to help us all "learn it, do it, teach it."

It just so happens that mitchglaser.com and "Paradox Unbound" exist due to his generosity; he is my Web host. I should also mention that he lives with my mom.

Thurman travels extensively and documents his journeys on the Web, as I plan to do. We both like to read maps "for fun" at home, which means we are both freaks.

I didn't fully realize Thurman's influence on me until I got to the East Coast and took pictures of the same types of things he would. The first occurence of this was while dining at Geno's Steaks in South Philly - the picture below is a shameless imitation of one of his. Of course, it's probably classier to take the picture before you start eating but I ask, isn't it less "real?"

Then in D.C. I saw a "gum tree" that reminded me of the "shoe tree" Thurman loves so much.

Also in D.C., I saw an overflowing trash can that reminded me of azlitter.org and uslitter.org. Thurman's anti-litter crusade, and his controversial position that political campaign signs should be considered litter and "visual spam," got him media attention in The Arizona Republic and on the KPHO-TV 5 News in Phoenix.

Thurman's litter crusade prompted him to "adopt a street" - the southbound frontage road of the Loop 101 Freeway between Baseline and Guadalupe roads in Tempe, Arizona. He doesn't pay the city to clean the street "in his name," he actually goes out and picks up the trash himself (even in summer!). Check it out.

I hope to be as expressive, creative, and prolific with my Web endeavors.

Prelude to a Blog

I am really interested in photo documentation - I enjoy pictures that depict a process in order to show its progress over time.

In order to begin blogging and building my Web Site, I needed to acquire a computer and create a work space for it. I ordered a nice desktop package online from Dell nearly 2 weeks ago, but I did not own a desk to place it on.

Last Sunday I went to Target, a store that seems to take pleasure in removing any and all inhibitions I may have about acquiring lots of things. I went there planning to buy a computer desk and left with a full home office. This first picture depicts my haul:

The next step was to assemble the furniture. Luckily, I have Fridays off, and this was a task that kept me busy through the early afternoon. Minutes before I finished, a UPS driver arrived with the Dell system.

A couple hours later, everything was finished. Looking at this picture, I realize I should make some kind of effort to "clean up" the menagerie of wires below the desk. (Note the framed set of pictures at upper right depicting San Francisco in 1915, 1958, 1972, and 1986)

You might notice I had to bring out an old filing cabinet from my bedroom to accomodate the printer. I am glad I went for a 4-in-1 printer/copier/scanner/fax machine but I understimated how large it would be. The styling of the printer seems retro to me, like an old personal copy machine from the 1980's. Here's a close-up:

The last remaining task was to hook the computer into the Internet. Lacking the patience to wait until Monday to ask our building's maintenance guy to drill a hole from my roommate's bedroom into the living room, I chose to create a wireless network. Hey, my apartment's a "wi-fi hot spot" now! Bring your laptop. This last photo was taken earlier today, with the humble beginnings of "Paradox Unbound" displayed on the screen:

And this is how my blogging command center was born.