Photo by Brian Addison. Above: a pedestrian overpass above the 22 Freeway entering East Long Beach.
I think it’s time to stop using the word density. It’s not used correctly by the majority of media and it’s certainly not used correctly by NIMBYs.
This is really a discussion about housing. For humans. And how cities go about creating that housing and those opportunities—so it should be of no shock that the uninformed are using the Land Use Element (LUE), the guiding document to development for any city, and not really getting what it is doing and what it isn’t doing.
Let me break this down: the City will be updating its own (massively dated) LUE; this document basically guides development for the entire city, creating zones for what is appropriate and inappropriate, how streets can and should be improved, et cetera. Some of the proposals include height increases in some areas—and no, we are not talking DTLB heights moving into the 5th District. By height increases, I mean allowing neighborhoods with two- or three-story heights to reach four- or five-story heights in a minimal amount of areas (and no, not in areas with single-family homes but areas like the Traffic Circle). Modest, keeping up with the times.
Well, NIMBYs already lost their shit with that. Twice.
Here’s the thing, East Long Beach: there are no high-rise apartments being built by your homes. Hell, there aren’t even seven- or six- or five-story apartment buildings being built near you. You’re already built out, you’re out in the boondocks with no access to regional transit—no developer in their right mind wants to build an apartment complex near you and even if they do, they’ll have to build it in the handful of places the LUE will dictate. Like the Traffic Circle. Like Bellflower & Stearns. Like places that are already developed.
And yet… And yet you’re still groanin’ and moanin’.
This isn’t about people “being stacked onto one another,” part of the NIMBY-fave phrase, “pack ’em and stack ’em”—after all, many feel blessed to be in a studio they can afford, as shocking as that might seem to some single-family homeowners. This isn’t about “too much density,” as Garcia noted (in his statement appealing to affluent neighborhoods) because five-story multi-family homes are not heavy density; they’re moderate increases in a very un-dense neighborhood.
“I’ve said it from day one: we must focus on where we put housing,” Garcia said. “I know some think my statement was an appeal to anti-housing folks but the reality is that we’re not going to turn suburban Long Beach into Downtown. That’s what the Downtown is for. And Central Long Beach? Let’s take out those auto shops and put in high density housing because it’s along a transit corridor—it just makes sense. No one is going to develop a seven-story apartment complex in East Long Beach. It just won’t happen.”
So let’s focus on what we’re really talking about: housing for humans.
Photo by Brian Addison. Above: looking northeast toward Signal Hill from DTLB.
I was asked a very particular question this week. It wasn’t necessarily by a NIMBY nor anyone wanting to argue just to argue; they were being genuine—so it was a question I took seriously:
“What are your thoughts on people who have paid the high amount for a home and don’t want the neighborhood they purposely bought in changed? […] If you bought in a quiet neighborhood and development wants to come in and completely change the reason you chose that neighborhood. And I’m not picking sides—I just think everyone needs to be more open to conversation.”
I am deeply blessed in one sense: my partner owns a condo in Long Beach, one that I helped him find, and one that I am happy to continue to invest in—but it was out of a very specific string of circumstances that we are able to live in our own place.
In fact, had Alamitos Beach not been developed, we probably wouldn’t have been able to purchase anything here as it would have been out of our range.
Surely people have the right to pretend like it’s perfectly okay to assure their neighborhood will never change in their lifetime; when they pass, they won’t have to worry about it anymore. But these choices—to halt the building of housing and business opportunities, which include spaces for small businesses—will affect the future far more than those who live here now.
In other words, I find upping the cost of living, simply because one already owns, to be selfish and unconcerned about the future. It seems to reek with, “I am here and that’s all that matters!”
But now, the NIMBY conversation, specifically the one railing against the LUE, is reaching a whole new level: they want to have their cake and eat it too.
No, no, I don’t mean they just want everything and everyone to leave and get out so they can just live by themselves—like this unbecoming person who told Garcia flat-out she “doesn’t want affordable solutions” in her neighborhood, gods dammit… They want everything and everyone to leave but still have all the benefits of urban living.
Here’s how one list put it:
We want a future with –
* safety
* ability of home OWNERSHIP
* green space
* less congestion NOT more
* parking per residence
* pedestrian and bike
* adequate transit/transportation
* improvements without DENSITY
* neighborhood respect
* fair planning
You can’t say you want the ability to be able to buy if you don’t build more housing (or what you scream as “DENSITY”) because a lack of housing is what causes prices to skyrocket. Here’s the evidence for that.
You can’t ease congestion by giving more space to cars, whether it’s parking or expanded roadways. Here’s the evidence.
You can’t amp up on pedestrian and bike infrastructure, transit facilities, and green spaces when you are claiming you want more parking and less density, which contributes to pollution and congestion. Here’s some evidence for that.
But mostly, you can’t improve on your neighborhood by closing everyone out and not providing the future a chance to afford what you can. That’s just being an asshole.
So when you’re considering these things, it might behoove you to think outside of yourself. Just because you have the privilege of owning a house or living in a nice neighborhood doesn’t you mean you vote those who can’t out of it all.
The following public meetings will be held regarding the LUE update:
- Saturday, September 30, 3-5 PM at Veterans Park Community Center
101 E 28th St, Long Beach, CA 90806 - Wednesday, October 4, 6-8 PM at Whaley Park Community Center
5620 E Atherton St, Long Beach, CA 90815 - Saturday, October 14, 11-1 PM at Best Western Golden Sails Hotel
6285 Pacific Coast Hwy, Long Beach, CA 90803 - Wednesday, October 18, 6-8 PM at Expo Arts Center
4321 Atlantic Ave, Long Beach, CA 90807
11 Comments
Uninformed?
In my neighborhood, the proposed plan calls for 5 story buildings across a side street from existing 1-story single family homes. 4 story buildings across an alley from the backyards of existing 1-story single family homes.
I guess you can call the folks who would be directly affected by this as NIMBYs, because in the case of 4 story on alleys, it IS in their backyards.
What’s wrong with only 3 stories on the main streets running through residential neighborhoods?
Its important to point out too that the reason cities have all these amenities is because continued development and increasing intensity over time builds the tax base, allowing for the city to provide more services without having to drastically increase the tax rate.
When you put a city under glass, but continue to build infrastructure, and expand city services, your city goes broke. Which is precisely why so many cities especially in California have had budget problems.
If we allow the city to continue to grow, the tax base widens allowing for the city to provide more services and better maintained infrastructure.
Long Beach already has one of the highest sales tax rates in the USA. This money is suppose to pay for infrastructure. Are you stating the politicians lied to us? They claimed the Measure A money would cover the improvements required. More people require more spending.
Sales tax, yes. Property tax is relatively low. And I am stating that most people, politicians included, SEVERELY underestimate the actual cost of maintaining infrastructure such as roads over the span if its shelf life. Even with measure A, the city is forecasting a budget shortfall for the next two years. More people requires more spending in some services, but more people in a given area can be served by comparatively less infrastructure.
A mile of road costs the same to maintain regardless of whether there are single family homes along it, duplexes, or small apartment buildings. The difference is each person will be responsible for a smaller portion of it if there are more of them.
And as multifamily structures typically have a far higher value/acre, the tax contribution is significantly higher. When you take huge portions of the city and land mark them as sacrosanct single family home only areas, you’re assuring that the maintenance costs will stay high per person. Or that the streets will just go to crap eventually.
I don’t agree with your maintenance cost theory.
Small residential roads with just single family homes typically have very low use and maintenance costs. Small roads with lots of multi-units have much higher road costs.
I’m not sure how the split math works, but the “mile of road cost” is not the same.
The entitlement is overwhelming. If you want to live in the nice neighborhood then put in the work to make it happen. Working at the coffee shop during the week and the record store on the weekends isn’t going to get it done and it’s not society’s responsibility to make things right by you. Show some accountability and make it right for yourself.
I hate that the discussion on the LUE pits NIMBYS vs YIMBYS; I think there are a fair amount of us that understand the need for more development, but are concerned about some of the proposals.
There are plenty of SFHs by the Traffic Circle and Bellflower and Stearns. Please show me on the map where these areas are not surrounded by SFHs – a good example would be the area off Atherton and Ximeno (few SFH), a bad example would be Clark-Bellflower across Stearns (SFH neighborhood). Some of these areas have proposed 6-story housing. Is that a “skyscraper,” of course not. Does it seem a little high to be neighboring a SFH area, especially if no parking is added? Sure.
What areas are “out in the boondocks with no access to regional transit”? My understanding is that most of Eastside LB is connected via the bus.
LB also continues to build out “urban sprawl” areas instead of building housing. 2nd and PCH? New Chik-Fil-A area? New developments by the airport? Was housing seriously considered for these large expanses of land? The old Toyota service center sits unused – that would be a great location for additional apartments or condos.
I personally think some of the proposals are extreme since they do not seem to allow for more parking. I’d love to envision a world where everyone biked, walked, or used public transit, but it’s not happening right now, and reducing parking doesn’t exactly help (see: Alamitos Beach). The parking is so bad that Pearce is adding more parking – seems to counter the idea that reducing parking reduces the number of cars. I don’t think we need sprawling strip mall parking lots, but underground parking is something that needs to be factored in, and I worry it won’t be.
Two other concerns I have are: 1) will affordable housing TRULY be built – it seems the trend is towards luxury apartments and pricey condos, and 2) (I wish I could find the source) there seems to be a higher demand for SFHs as millennials “grow up.” Will the condos and apartments be filled up the way that LB and the developers envision?
There is not enough buildable land in the major metropolitan areas of California. There isn’t much anyone can do to help the situation. But even if there were, the regulations and permit processing is so complicated and difficult that builders will never be able to build fast enough to accommodate everyone that wants to live here.
Keep in mind, the only thing keeping more people from moving to California is the high cost of housing. Lower that, and you are back at square one.
As far as affordability, housing is in a never ending cycle of bubbles. Bubbles always burst. There will be a price correction, might not help renters, though.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/real-estate/sd-fi-apartments-multifamily-council-20170626-story.html
Property tax is not low. If you bought before 1978 yours may be low. It’s skyrocket because it goes by how much you may for your home. It’s lower than NY’s proper tax. I had a friend there who paid 32K a year property tax on a home that original cost them $750K.
I want free Unicorns for everyone.
Fine, but they’re not staying in MY neighborhood.