Sept. 23, 2025 5 AM PT
To the editor: Whereas Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) could also be a brilliant fellow with experience on a variety of different necessary points, smart metropolis planning is seemingly not certainly one of them (“Slow growth is so 1990s. New housing law affirms drive to build,” Sept. 17). Good metropolis planning actually isn’t about abandoning/overriding all of the zoning and historic preservation legal guidelines which have developed over years to develop and protect the character of our metropolis and what stays of its high quality of life, as he proposes.
Sure, we’ve a scarcity of inexpensive housing. However many of the housing going up is something however “inexpensive.” We’d like extra considerate options to sensitively enhance density along with including the required infrastructure to assist it — not merely peanut-buttering high-rises nearly all through the town. Wiener’s promise that individuals will immediately take to public transit is naïve and raises the specter of additional rising Los Angeles’ already nightmarish commute occasions.
SB 79 as written will not be a considerate resolution. It’s a silly and damaging measure that wants to return to the drafting board.
Roger Leib, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Because the Los Angeles Occasions experiences, the L.A. Metropolis Council, Mayor Karen Bass and a broad coalition of neighborhood teams oppose SB 79, which might add huge density throughout the town — excess of wanted to satisfy state mandates. All with out requiring any inexpensive housing.
SB 79 overrides native authority; fails to require upgrades to infrastructure, open house and bushes; disregards the event potential of economic corridors; and guarantees large disruption to thriving communities.
Supporters predict that the majority new buildings will are available properly below the brand new nine-story restrict. So, we’re requested to consider that builders inclined to maximise market potential will go for one thing extra modest.
Think about your freewheeling cousin asks for a $20,000 advance in opposition to future revenue however guarantees to make use of only a fraction of the funds. Would you go for it? I don’t suppose so.
The measure is a bonanza for builders, a civic catastrophe and an insult to our intelligence.
Shelley Wagers, Los Angeles
