As a housing supplier, it is in my financial interest for the government to continue to block development of new housing at a scale commensurate with demand. However, as an American who loves cities, in general, and Los Angeles, in particular, I am strongly in favor of loosening restrictions on development. More housing equals lower
Here are some pictures that drive me insane: These are pictures, respectively, of the Vermont /Beverly, Soto/1st, and Vermont/Santa Monica Metro stops. Why do they drive me insane? As a city, we are spending billions of dollars to build out our currently-woefully-inadequate public transportation system to turn LA into a normal city. The single
Want to give you some insight into why, exactly, its so hard for LA to add more housing. Here’s a perfect example: We own a big, R3 lot in an improving area, bordered by two alleys. This ought to be a super easy lot to develop and, indeed, we are in the process of obtaining
Was looking at a deal in the Valley yesterday, was surprised by the rents, and came to a realization about apartment supply. The reason that I was surprised by the rents is that I’m used to thinking of the Valley as having considerably more supply than the city. There’s physically just a ton of land
Love this article in today’s NY Times. For the lazy: The article makes the case that America doesn’t have boomtowns anymore, because the cities with the most economic opportunity have put in place land0use restrictions that keep housing prices very high, blocking new workers from coming in. Now, as a developer with a growing property