Nonprofits allege Los Angeles plan to boost housing development is too weak, illegal
Two housing advocacy organizations sued the city of Los Angeles on Thursday, alleging its recent plan to boost home building is inadequate and fails to comply with state law.
In their lawsuit, the groups, Yes In My Back Yard and Californians for Homeownership, allege that the city has not demonstrated its plan can accommodate an additional 255,000 homes as required, in part because the city failed to change the underlying zoning in many neighborhoods.
In a news release, Yes In My Back Yard, or YIMBY, said the need for more housing is even more pressing after January's fires wiped away thousands of homes in Los Angeles.
'Angelinos are expecting their government to deliver the housing and infrastructure they need to thrive,' Sonja Trauss, YIMBY executive director, said in a statement. 'We need to rebuild quickly and efficiently.'
Economists generally blame a lack of home building as the main driver of California's high prices and rents. The lawsuit filed Thursday covers a complicated process cities go through to try to ensure enough housing can be built. Under the state-mandated process, known as the Housing Element, the city of Los Angeles needed to find land where an additional 255,000 could realistically be built over an eight-year period.
To hit that goal, the city changed the underlying zoning in a few communities, including downtown, but relied mostly on a series of new incentive building programs known collectively as the CHIP ordinance, which it approved last week.
Under CHIP, while underlying zoning rules stay the same, developers can exceed those limits on size, height and unit count if they include a certain percentage of affordable units. In general, the incentives can only be used in commercial and existing multifamily zones, not areas reserved for single-family houses.
In the lawsuit brought by YIMBY and Californians for Homeownership, which is funded by the California Assn. of Realtors, the groups allege the city previously committed to changing the underlying zoning of more neighborhoods, and in failing to do so, violated state law.
Matthew Gelfand, counsel for Californians for Homeownership, said Los Angeles initially indicated it needed those additional rezonings to meet its numbers and that by relying on voluntary incentive programs Los Angeles makes it less likely it will produce the large volume of units it needs.
Nora Frost, a spokeswoman with the Los Angeles City Planning Department, said the city's plan complies with housing element law and that it is a 'transformative program, driven by extensive, multilingual community engagement, which will significantly increase housing production throughout the city.'
Alicia Murillo, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Housing and Community Development, which oversees the implementation of the state housing law, said the agency is evaluating Los Angeles' plan and 'will reach out to the city if there are any questions or concerns.'
YIMBY and Californians for Homeownership have a history of suing cities to enforce state housing law.
In November, an L.A. County Superior Court judge found the city of Los Angeles illegally denied 78 affordable homes in Sun Valley in a lawsuit brought by YIMBY.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal cuts force families to make difficult, and potentially deadly, choices
A mother rushes into the emergency department cradling her 6-month-old baby. He is lethargic, seizing and in critical condition. The cause? Severely low sodium levels in his blood — a result of formula diluted with extra water to make it last longer. With grocery prices climbing and her SNAP benefits running out before the end of the month, she felt she had no other choice. This story is not an outlier. Pediatric clinicians across Wisconsin are seeing the real and devastating consequences of policies that fail to prioritize the health and well-being of children and families. And now, the situation could get worse. The Trump Administration's proposed 'skinny' budget for Fiscal Year 2026 includes deep and dangerous cuts to federal programs that form the backbone of public health in our communities. These proposed reductions include: $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health – stalling critical pediatric research and innovation $3.5 billion from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – compromising disease surveillance, immunization programs, and emergency response efforts $1.73 billion from the Health Resources and Services Administration – cutting access to essential primary and preventive care services for children and families $674 million from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services – threatening the Medicaid and CHIP programs that provide health coverage to nearly half of Wisconsin's children. Opinion: We asked readers about wake boats on Wisconsin lakes. Here's what you said. And as if that weren't enough, further reductions to SNAP and other nutrition support programs are also on the table. These aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet. These are lifelines. Vital services that help children survive and thrive. When families can't afford formula, when clinics lose funding for immunization programs, when children lose health coverage, the consequences are immediate and, in many cases, irreversible. As front-line providers, we witness this every day. We can do better. Our federal budget is a reflection of our national values. It should not balance its books on the backs of our youngest and most vulnerable. I implore Wisconsin's elected officials to reject this harmful budget proposal. Think of that infant in the emergency room. Think of the thousands of other children across our state whose health and future depend on robust public health infrastructure, access to care, and support for families in need. We urge lawmakers to work toward a bipartisan budget that invests in children, strengthens public health, and protects the building blocks of a healthy society. Wisconsin's children deserve every opportunity to grow up healthy and strong. Our chapter of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners stands ready to partner in this effort. Let's move forward — not backward — when it comes to the health of our children. Christine Schindler is a critical care pediatric nurse practitioner at Children's WI, a clinical professor at Marquette University, and the President of the Wisconsin Chapter of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners. She has been caring for critically ill and injured children for almost 30 years. All opinions expressed are her own. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Trump budget jeopardizes health of American children | Opinion
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Hawley says Trump told him ‘no Medicaid benefit cuts'
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has pushed back against a House proposal to reduce Medicaid spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, says President Trump told him Monday that the final bill encompassing his domestic agenda will not include any cuts to Medicaid benefits. 'Just had a great talk with President Trump about the Big, Beautiful Bill. He said again, NO MEDICAID BENEFIT CUTS,' Hawley posted on the social platform X. That post appeared to prompt a response from Texas Rep. Chip Roy (R), a vocal proponent of adding additional deficit-reducing reforms to the reconciliation bill, who argued that Medicaid needs to stop subsidizing able-bodied adults. 'Just had a great talk with my kids. They said again, STOP BORROWING MONEY TO PROP UP WASTEFUL SPENDING & TO SUBSIDIZE THE ABLE-BODIED OVER THE VULNERABLE,' Roy posted. The Congressional Budget Office estimated on a preliminary basis that the House bill would cut gross Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) by more than $800 billion over 10 years and reduce Medicaid enrollment by 10.3 million people, according to the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) have also raised concerns about the potential impact of Medicaid spending cuts on constituents and rural hospitals. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Medicaid cuts will harm children and education in Utah
Federal and local funding cuts to the Medicaid program, as well as unnecessary eligibility requirements, could cost thousands of Utahns access to continual and preventative healthcare. On the surface, it appears that Medicaid is sometimes viewed as a line item on the budget and a candidate for cutting back to save pennies and offset tax cuts. However, I caution our federal and local representatives to not underestimate the benefits of our social programs, like Medicaid, beyond their budgetary justification. My mother enrolled in Medicaid for her three children. When I fell sick, she could afford to take me to a doctor and get the medication I needed. Because she had access to the program, I was able to return to school and I was ready to continue my educational success. Without this public health service, it is likely I would have missed more days of school, and my mind would have often been foggy, interfering with my concentration in school. No school resource, excellent teacher, textbook or private school voucher could have overcome these health-related speed bumps. Not only did having access to healthcare through Medicaid benefit my health, but it also facilitated my academic achievement. My experience with Medicaid is not unique. Any parent knows that children frequently get sick. In addition, the proportion of children enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) range from 8% to 43% across school districts in Utah including 27% and 23% of students within Granite and Salt Lake City School Districts, respectively, and 43% within San Juan School District. While these numbers sound like a health-related budgetary challenge, they also play a significant role in our educational system. Although logical on face value, substantial data show that sick children underperform and miss more days of school compared to their peers. For example, the National Center for Health Statistics reported that, in 2022, nearly 6% of students nationwide missed 15 or more days of school because of health-related issues; among those students, around 29% had fair to poor health compared to only 5% among healthy students. Additionally, acute and chronic health conditions, as well as risky health behaviors, have been associated with lower school grades. Children have a greater opportunity at succeeding in school when they can take care of their health. Considering that reading comprehension has dipped, on average, and about 20% of Utah students are considered chronically absent, it is crucial for our decision makers to consider all of the holistic factors that contribute to or impede educational success. So why is public health insurance important for education? In 2023, over 50,000 Utahns under 19 years old were uninsured, a figure that will likely increase with cuts to Medicaid. Children without insurance coverage are less likely to receive preventative care and have access to prescriptions compared to their insured peers, even when insured for part of the year. In fact, prior expansions of Medicaid were associated with increases in healthcare utilization and decreases in preventable hospital visits and mortality, as well as increased reading test scores, greater rates of graduating high school and upward economic mobility. Restricting eligibility to Medicaid will have negative consequences, not only on children's health, but also on their educational journey, undermining our state's investment in public education. The relation between Medicaid eligibility, educational attainment, future health and economic success creates an inter-related cycle; one that can lead to more successful and healthier Utah families. In other words, families eligible for Medicaid can care for their children's health needs and, in turn, these children will have a greater chance of graduating from high school, having higher earnings and being more productive, therefore potentially offsetting the costs of the program. In Utah, we spend billions of dollars on public education. We should be focused on strengthening all social services that get the most out of our constitutional investment. Medicaid is one of those programs. I encourage our federal and state representatives to see Medicaid as more than a budgetary line item. Instead, view it as an investment in Utah's education and an investment in our future.
