logo
Other States Are Showing L.A. How to Rebuild

Other States Are Showing L.A. How to Rebuild

Yahoo16-02-2025

The Los Angeles metro area began 2025 with one of the worst housing shortages in the country: more than half a million units, by some estimates. The deficit has multiplied over many years thanks in part to the obscene amount of time it takes to get permission to build. According to state data, securing permits to construct a single-family home in the city requires an average of 15 months. Countywide, receiving planning approvals and permits for a typical apartment takes nearly a year and a half.
And that was before the fires. Last month, more than 16,000 homes and other structures burned down, and fire damage may have rendered many thousands more uninhabitable. The devastation magnified L.A.'s already desperate need to speed up permitting, but local policy makers responded by fast-tracking only identical rebuilds. Families who want to build in less fire-prone areas or add space to shelter displaced neighbors are out of luck. So are the developers who submitted applications before the fire; now they're at the back of the line. Some have already received notices that their housing applications are indefinitely paused. Delays once measured in months could soon be measured in years.
If nothing changes, Southern California's housing crisis could plumb new depths. But policy makers in states around the country are showing Los Angeles a way out.
Take Texas. Until recently, cities and suburbs across the state faced similar shortages—in their case, due to a massive influx of new arrivals. In places such as Dallas, where home prices increased by roughly 50 percent from 2020 to 2023, city hall often took months to respond to applications to build housing. According to one study in Austin, every three and a half months of delays were associated with rent increases of 4 to 5 percent.
[Jerusalem Demsas: To rebuild Los Angeles, fix zoning]
In response, a bipartisan coalition of Texas legislators passed H.B. 14 in 2023. The law grants applicants the right to hire licensed third-party architects and engineers to review permit applications and conduct inspections if local regulators fail to act within 45 days. As a result, housing permits have surged. In Austin, home prices and rents are falling—probably too much, if you're a landlord. California should be so lucky.
Other states are finding ways to streamline permitting, too. Tennessee passed a bill last year that allowed applicants to turn to licensed third parties after 30 days. And as of 2021, developers in Florida can request a refund on fees if regulators take too long to decide on a permit—a reform that increased on-time reviews in some parts of the state by 70 percent. Last year, Florida empowered applicants to go to third-party reviewers and inspectors from the start.
Similar bills have been introduced in states across the political spectrum, including New Hampshire and Washington. And help could soon be on the way for California: In mid-January, Assemblymember Chris Ward introduced A.B. 253, which would allow anyone proposing to build a project under 40 feet tall and with 10 or fewer housing units to turn to licensed third-party reviewers if regulators don't act in 30 days.
Of course, any change in how a state reviews plans or inspects new housing will raise reasonable health and safety concerns. But allowing third-party involvement promises to improve consumer protections. Unlike public officials, who enjoy sovereign immunity when they make a mistake, a third-party architect or engineer who signs off on bad plans faces full liability, including the possibility of losing her license.
[Conor Friedersdorf: L.A. isn't ready for what's next]
Still, streamlining permits won't be enough on its own. Los Angeles must pass zoning reform that gives residents who lost their homes the flexibility to rebuild their communities with a range of housing types, including townhouses and family-size apartments, as well neighborhood retail such as cafés and comic shops. The alternative—outside developers rebuilding a bunch of mansions—might be better than barren lots, but not by much.
The many tens of thousands of recently displaced Angelenos don't have years to wait for solutions. Neither do the hundreds of thousands of Californians locked out of homeownership, who are stuck paying half of their income for rent or living on the streets. In survey after survey, Americans tell pollsters that they want simpler, faster permitting. At least in California, there will never be a better time to give it to them.
Article originally published at The Atlantic

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Assembly candidates invited to find out more
Assembly candidates invited to find out more

Yahoo

time12 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Assembly candidates invited to find out more

Aspiring politicians in Jersey are being invited to find out more about becoming an assembly member with a year to go until the general election. Jersey will elect a new States Assembly - the island's parliament - on 7 June 2026. - the island's official guide to the election - is holding a special event on 24 June so prospective candidates can meet current politicians, learn about the process and see inside the States Chamber. Emily Thomas, campaign manager, said: "The one-year-to-go mark is an important milestone for anyone who is keen to step up and make a difference in our community." She said the organisation was "already starting to hear from people" looking for advice on standing. "Assembly is a job like no other so it's essential that new candidates can access insights and guidance from people who have experience of Jersey's political system," she said. Plan to Stand is a free-to-attend event and will take place between 18:00 and 20:30 BST at the States Building. It will involve a panel discussion and Q&A session with Connétables Andy Jehan and Kevin Lewis, and Deputies Catherine Curtis and Helen Miles. Jersey holds elections every four years with the next political term ending in 2030. More news stories for Jersey Listen to the latest news for Jersey Follow BBC Jersey on X and Facebook. Send your story ideas to Event aims to support aspiring election candidates Jersey's next general election to move to a Sunday Jersey voters could be automatically registered Vote JE

McCAUGHEY: Democrats waging war on small-town values and property values
McCAUGHEY: Democrats waging war on small-town values and property values

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Yahoo

McCAUGHEY: Democrats waging war on small-town values and property values

Across the U.S., Democrats are waging war to crush a lifestyle they abhor. Call it small-town America: Single-family neighbourhoods, quiet streets, town centres stamped with their historic character and almost no signs of the vagrancy and homeless encampments that plague cities. Democrats want you to have none of this. If you've worked for years to save up for a home in one of these havens, forget about it. The Democratic Party is using brute legal force to remake towns using a cookie-cutter formula that forces each to have the same proportion of houses and apartments, the same mix of low-, middle- and upper-income residents and the same reliance on public transit, all controlled by state politicians. Any town that resists gets shamed as 'segregated', though this isn't about race, and 'snobby.' On May 31, the Connecticut legislature passed H.B. 5002, which should be called the Destroy Connecticut Towns Act. It's headed to Gov. Ned Lamont's desk for a signature. The new law dictates how many low-income and moderate-income apartments each Connecticut town must provide and mandates that towns also foot the bill for the schools, parks, public transportation and other services low-income residents will need. Local taxes will soar. The bill explicitly says its purpose is to ensure 'economic diversity' in each town. This is about social engineering, not remedying housing shortages. Democrat Bob Duff, the state senate majority leader, says 'it's extremely important … that we don't segregate people based on a ZIP code.' Everyone, regardless of income, should have the opportunity to choose to live in any town. The bill mandates that the wealthiest towns, mostly in lower Fairfield County, provide most of the new housing, even though that raises the cost. Land costs less in other towns and lower-income people, who this bill is supposed to serve, are more likely to find bus transportation and affordable stores in these other towns as well. Connecticut lawmakers are nixing local rules. Ordinances that protect the appearance of a town have to be overruled. The bill states that multifamily buildings of up to 24 units will no longer have to provide off-street parking. Envision cars lining every residential street. Towns will also be forced to welcome vagrants who want to sleep in parks and public lots. The bill outlaws 'hostile architecture,' meaning park benches with armrests and divided seating, or stone walls with spikes on top that deter sleeping in the rough. Instead, the bill launches a program of mobile showers and mobile laundry services on trucks to serve the homeless wherever they choose. Picture the mobile showers pulling up to Greenwich Common Park on the town's main street, or Waveny Park in New Canaan. How can kids walk around town with their pals if there are homeless encampments? Judge Glock, director of research at the Manhattan Institute think tank, points out that the homeless amount to 1% of the population in Los Angeles but commit 25% of the homicides. Inviting the homeless means inviting crime and drugs. Californicating the small towns of Connecticut by encouraging public camping and vagrancy 'is frightening,' says Glock. New York Democrats are also taking aim at small-town living. A bill sponsored by state Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal would outlaw local towns from setting minimum lot sizes over one-eighth of an acre near the town centre and a half acre everywhere else. Postage stamp sizes. Riverhead, New York, town supervisor Tim Hubbard is vowing to sue. 'We're trying to keep our community as rural as it can be … We don't think the state should be zoning our town.' Hoylman-Sigal chooses to live on the west side of Manhattan, but who is he to impose a population-dense lifestyle on small-town New Yorkers? Similarly, in New Jersey, Democratic Gov. Tim Murphy is pushing lawmakers to override local ordinances and impose the same kinds of 'reforms' as those in the Connecticut bill. In all these states and across the country, small-town Americans need to fight back. There is no constitutional right to live in a wealthy town with single-family homes and leafy, quiet streets. It's something you earn. Once you've purchased a home, you have the right to protect its value. It's time to put blue-state politicians on notice that their battle to destroy our suburbs and small towns will be resisted at the voting booth and in court.

Court halts controversial Oklahoma immigration law that would create new state charge
Court halts controversial Oklahoma immigration law that would create new state charge

Yahoo

time2 days ago

  • Yahoo

Court halts controversial Oklahoma immigration law that would create new state charge

Oklahoma can't enforce a controversial state immigration law while a related lawsuit works its way through court, a federal judge in Oklahoma City has ruled. U.S. District Judge Bernard Jones issued the injunction Tuesday, June 3, weeks after he had issued a similar, but shorter-term, order in the case. The lawsuit centers on a 2024 law known as House Bill 4156, which would let state courts prosecute people for the crime of "impermissible occupation." Civil rights groups want the court to throw out the law as unconstitutional. They contend the federal government has the exclusive right to regulate immigration. Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond has countered that Oklahoma should be allowed to enforce the law. Jones said in his ruling that while Oklahoma officials may have understandable concerns about the impacts of undocumented immigration, the federal government has the sole right to control immigration law. "In the end, that is why H.B. 4156 must fail — not to excuse unlawful presence or shield criminal conduct, but because it is what the Constitution demands," Jones wrote. Jones was nominated to the bench in 2019 by Republican President Donald Trump during his first term in office. Trump has made clamping down on illegal immigration a key focus of his second term. Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. sued Oklahoma in 2024 in an attempt to block HB 4156 from taking effect. But federal prosecutors dropped out of the case after Trump took office. The government's exit put the case in legal limbo. In May, several plaintiffs, including the ACLU, revived the legal challenge to the law and asked a judge to put it on hold until the lawsuit worked its way through court. Jones granted that request, writing that he was unconvinced by arguments that Oklahoma has any power to enforce state-level immigration laws. "The federal government retains, as it always has, 'broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens,'" Jones wrote, citing a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. "And noncitizens who violate federal immigration law—whether in Oklahoma or elsewhere—remain subject to that authority, if and when the federal government chooses to act." Noor Zafar, an attorney for the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, said the groups suing to block the law were grateful for Jones' decision to put the law on hold. 'Every single day that HB 4156 is in effect, it puts immigrants in Oklahoma at tremendous risk,' Zafar said in a statement. Drummond, who has been a vocal supporter of the law, did not immediately respond to a request sent to a spokesperson for comment on the injunction. He had previously accused the court of 'protecting admitted lawbreakers from federal and state consequences' after Jones issued a temporary restraining order in the case. Oklahoma's HB 4156: What to know about state's paused immigration law, Trump policies Drummond's office also had asked Jones to block two plaintiffs from suing under the fictitious names of Barbara Boe and Christopher Coe, rather than their legal names. Court filings described Boe as a 51-year-old Mexican national who lives in Tulsa and Coe as a 37-year-old Mexican national who lives in Broken Bow. They had argued that using their real names would open them up to law enforcement scrutiny. Jones agreed, saying it would "effectively place a target on their backs simply for seeking judicial review" of a state law that they claim is unconstitutional. He pushed back against the state's argument that allowing Boe and Coe to use pseudonyms would protect "federal lawbreakers from the federal consequences of their actions." He described that argument as a mischaracterization that did not "move the needle." "After all, this case concerns a state immigration law, and the federal government stands in no better — or worse position to prosecute or remove plaintiffs for federal immigration violations by virtue of their pseudonymity," Jones wrote. If HB 4156 is ultimately allowed to go into effect, the law would establish the misdemeanor crime of "impermissible occupation," with punishment being up to one year in a county jail, a $500 fine or both. Any subsequent convictions would trigger felony charges and the possibility of spending two years in state prison or paying a $1,000 fine. People convicted of impermissible occupation would be forced to leave Oklahoma within 72 hours of being released. This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Oklahoma's controversial anti-immigration law HB 4156 halted again

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store