To the editor: Joel Kotkin’s piece is a welcome break from the orthodoxy, constantly promoted in your opinion pages, that relieving housing shortages calls for the densification of single-family neighborhoods. (“California’s housing problems require a better solution than densify, densify, densify,” Opinion, Feb. 18)
Kotkin cites analysis exhibiting that pressured densification does little to alleviate housing inflation. Extra importantly, he highlights an inconvenient fact.
In a latest Public Coverage Institute of California survey, 70% of the state’s adults most popular single-family residences. In a separate ballot, a big majority of Californians opposed state laws banning single-family zoning.
“If we construct it, they may come” is an unreliable mode of social engineering. Simply have a look at L.A.’s largely empty bike lanes.
Shelley Wagers, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Kotkin bravely proposes an unorthodox resolution to the housing disaster — discouraging multi-family growth the place folks need to reside, and as an alternative encouraging Californians searching for reasonably priced housing to sprawl out additional into the Central Valley and Inland Empire.
If this sounds precisely like our housing established order, that’s as a result of it’s. Kotkin’s evaluation gives nothing however a misunderstanding of market forces in service of the NIMBY insurance policies that introduced us into this mess.
I agree that some environmental guidelines stand in the way in which of recent housing and want reform. Nevertheless, many of the land for housing in Southern California is already zoned for single-family residences, which Kotkin prefers. So why are Californians upset if surveys present they really need single-family houses? As a result of they’ll’t afford one!
Constructing denser housing in cities isn’t some authorities distortion of the free market. It’s permitting the housing market to broaden provide the place demand is excessive. Folks need to reside in these areas — that’s why they’re costly.
I assist streamlining rules to permit the development of extra single-family houses in areas the place it’s at present tough to take action. However I additionally strongly object to age-old NIMBY insurance policies that solely serve to protect our established order.
Edward Williams, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Elected officers have to heed the knowledge of students similar to Kotkin and make the housing disaster a top-tier situation.
The vote final December by the Los Angeles Metropolis Council to protect 72% of L.A.’s residential land for single-family zoning will severely hinder new housing building. It will reinforce decades-long inequalities in L.A.’s housing market.
Until individuals who have been lucky to purchase their houses throughout rather more reasonably priced cycles acknowledge the urgency of this disaster, future generations won’t ever be capable of obtain homeownership on job earnings alone. This impacts notably the “lacking center” class of lecturers, law enforcement officials, nurses and others who make an excessive amount of to qualify for help but too little to purchase a house within the communities they serve.
Lisa Ansell, Beverly Hills
..
To the editor: Kotkin’s proposed options to the state’s housing disaster aren’t viable options.
He touts the advantages of peripheral growth as a strategy to entice new homebuyers. The final time I checked, house costs are excessive in every single place in L.A. County. The place is that this magical, low cost land positioned?
Second, he says that distant work choices make peripheral growth extra practicable. Exterior the tech sector, distant work isn’t a viable choice for many professions. Paradoxically, the extra tech jobs an space has, the extra house costs go up.
Say what you want about infill growth, however many communities aren’t in favor of sprawling subdivisions. Infill growth conserves land, reduces automobile dependence and may stay a part of the answer to the housing scarcity.
Kristen Kessler, Ventura
