Letters to the Editor: Denser cities or more sprawl? Readers debate California’s housing crisis

To the editor: Joel Kotkin’s piece is a welcome break from the orthodoxy, consistently promoted in your opinion pages, that relieving housing shortages demands the densification of single-family neighborhoods. (“California’s housing problems require a better solution than densify, densify, densify,” Opinion, Feb. 18)

Kotkin cites research showing that forced densification does little to relieve housing inflation. More importantly, he highlights an inconvenient truth.

In a recent Public Policy Institute of California survey, 70% of the state’s adults preferred single-family residences. In a separate poll, a large majority of Californians opposed state legislation banning single-family zoning.

“If we build it, they will come” is an unreliable mode of social engineering. Just look at L.A.’s largely empty bike lanes.

Shelley Wagers, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Kotkin bravely proposes an unorthodox solution to the housing crisis — discouraging multi-family development where people want to live, and instead encouraging Californians in search of affordable housing to sprawl out further into the Central Valley and Inland Empire.

If this sounds exactly like our housing status quo, that’s because it is. Kotkin’s analysis provides nothing but a misunderstanding of market forces in service of the NIMBY policies that brought us into this mess.

I agree that some environmental rules stand in the way of new housing and need reform. However, most 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 show they actually want single-family homes? Because they can’t afford one!

Building denser housing in cities isn’t some government distortion of the free market. It’s allowing the housing market to expand supply where demand is high. People want to live in these areas — that’s why they’re expensive.

I support streamlining regulations to allow the construction of more single-family homes in areas where it is currently difficult to do so. But I also strongly object to age-old NIMBY policies that only serve to preserve our status quo.

Edward Williams, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Elected officials need to heed the wisdom of scholars such as Kotkin and make the housing crisis a top-tier issue.

The vote last December by the Los Angeles City Council to preserve 72% of L.A.’s residential land for single-family zoning will severely hinder new housing construction. This will reinforce decades-long inequalities in L.A.’s housing market.

Unless people who were fortunate to buy their homes during much more affordable cycles recognize the urgency of this crisis, future generations will never be able to achieve homeownership on job income alone. This affects particularly the “missing middle” class of teachers, police officers, nurses and others who make too much to qualify for assistance yet too little to buy a home in the communities they serve.

Lisa Ansell, Beverly Hills

..

To the editor: Kotkin’s proposed solutions to the state’s housing crisis are not viable solutions.

He touts the benefits of peripheral development as a way to entice new homebuyers. The last time I checked, home prices are high everywhere in L.A. County. Where is this magical, cheap land located?

Second, he says that remote work options make peripheral development more practicable. Outside the tech sector, remote work isn’t a viable option for most professions. Ironically, the more tech jobs an area has, the more home prices go up.

Say what you like about infill development, but many communities are not in favor of sprawling subdivisions. Infill development conserves land, reduces car dependence and should remain part of the solution to the housing shortage.

Kristen Kessler, Ventura