Brentwood, 40 years ago the same

A neat little tool, Historic Aerials, will show you what the landscape used to look like many years ago. I've been using it lately to see what our freeway system destroyed, especially downtown. There's some incredible stuff. The latest part that I ran into is the most astounding thing I've seen so far. Looking at Brentwood, 1952 looks way too similar to 2009. There isn't too much more development. Even more incredible, 1972 looks EXACTLY like 2009. No changes at all that I can see. The area isn't any denser, no new development, nothing.

This is the square that I was looking at on the website.



Oh by the way, there are about 4,000,000 in the city of Los Angeles today. There were about 2.8 million people in 1972. For this kind of an increase, you would expect some more development. But I guess our politicians think that higher prices are a better option.

Vermont/Beverly (Cityscape)

This area has a Red Line subway station, yet look at the zoning around it. Immediately surrounding it is R4, medium density multiple family density. Not bad, but a subway station right in the middle of LA should be high density. Surrounding that is a medium sized area of R2. This is only two dwellings per lot. That is ridiculous. A subway station can only handle lots that can average 2 families? Intertwined with this R2 and surrounding it is M1. That's light industrial. This, around a subway station? It's impressive. Congratulations planning department of LA. You've really outdone yourselves here. Why would you zone industrial around a subway station? Why not allow other and larger types of development? Way to really make that station efficient.

http://zimas.lacity.org/map.asp?Cmd=panTool&ActiveTool=panTool&ActiveDataTab=AddressLegalInformation1&MapSource=http%3A%2F%2Fzimas.lacity.org%2Foutput%2FZimasMain_68wzimas4044448046.png&MapWidth=616&MapHeight=472&PrevExtXMin=6445956.56651716&PrevExtXMax=6462430.79109343&PrevExtYMin=1848897.40831361&PrevExtYMax=1861520.51545647&MapExtXMin=6457269.22397781&MapExtXMax=6473743.44855408&MapExtYMin=1853657.81736325&MapExtYMax=1866280.92450611&NewExtXMin=6463928.447873088&NewExtXMax=6480402.672449358&NewExtYMin=1844752.1082984782&NewExtYMax=1857375.215441338&LegendStr=95%3A1|12%3A1|80%3A1|85%3A0|89%3A1|87%3A1|53%3A1|6%3A1|91%3A1|74%3A1|24%3A1|16%3A1|49%3A0|28%3A0|54%3A0|11%3A1|55%3A0|58%3A0|93%3A1|0%3A1&BackgroundLayer=GPLU&ClickX=&ClickY=&SelectGeometry=&SelectShiftState=&SelectCtrlState=&SelType=0&Selection=&MultiSelPin=&SelectedMultiAddress=&ToolTips=true&ReportType=&IncludeMap=&PIN=&BufferDistance=0&BufferUnits=&SessionID=746F2C42BA3340B19FCC2DAC68E83B08&StartNbr=0&StrName=&SpecPlan=&ReportQuery=&WorkOrder=&ReportFormat=&RandomFactor=

LA Zoning Website (Cityscape)

This is one of my favorite websites. It shows how Los Angeles is zoned for development. It's pretty interesting to see how neighborhoods are ruled. Take a look at it here.

http://zimas.lacity.org/map.asp?Cmd=legend&ActiveTool=zoomInTool&ActiveDataTab=AddressLegalInformation1&MapSource=http%3A%2F%2Fzimas.lacity.org%2Foutput%2FZimasMain_68wzimas4964438858.png&MapWidth=616&MapHeight=472&PrevExtXMin=0&PrevExtXMax=0&PrevExtYMin=0&PrevExtYMax=0&MapExtXMin=6235210&MapExtXMax=6588657&MapExtYMin=1685416.98701299&MapExtYMax=1956240.01298701&NewExtXMin=6235210&NewExtXMax=6588657&NewExtYMin=1685416.98701299&NewExtYMax=1956240.01298701&LegendStr=95%3A1|12%3A1|80%3A1|85%3A0|89%3A1|87%3A1|53%3A1|6%3A1|91%3A1|74%3A1|24%3A1|16%3A1|49%3A0|28%3A0|54%3A0|11%3A1|55%3A0|58%3A0|93%3A1|0%3A1&BackgroundLayer=GPLU&ClickX=&ClickY=&SelectGeometry=&SelectShiftState=&SelectCtrlState=&SelType=0&Selection=&MultiSelPin=&SelectedMultiAddress=&ToolTips=true&ReportType=&IncludeMap=&PIN=&BufferDistance=0&BufferUnits=&SessionID=746F2C42BA3340B19FCC2DAC68E83B08&StartNbr=0&StrName=&SpecPlan=&ReportQuery=&WorkOrder=&ReportFormat=&RandomFactor=

I'll be posting reviews of how certain neighborhoods are zoned and discuss the effects of this.

LA $1 billion in the red. Go for pensions? Obviously. (Politics)

There's no doubt that a government job is a sweet deal. You get a government job and you're set for life, or at least that's how it used to be. More than 60 years of this spoils system and even government officials now are talking about those cushy jobs seriously. Maybe it's not such a good idea that we pick and choose which jobs will be loaded. Maybe not letting consumers decide which jobs will be most lucrative was a bad idea. Maybe, just maybe, government is as efficient as consumers are with how they spend their money. We know what we want, the government is never going to be as good as us.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/la-faces-1-billion-deficit-by-2013-budget-chief-calls-for-pension-reforms.html

Anyway, the budget chief is calling for pension reforms. What else can you say but "about friggin' time."

Unions compromise on furloughs (Politics)

Will they agree to pay cuts? No way. Will they agree to lower retirement benefits? Nope. What is their incentive?

A public employee union has all the power in the world. They already have salaries well above market rates, and it's easy to see why. The state can't fire them all, the politicians who organize that will never be reelected. Those politicians would be accused of being unsympathetic or of even being inhumane. When a union has no possibility of being laid off, then they have no reason to compromise. They will lose nothing if they strike outside of a few weeks or months pay. There is no risk of losing a job. When the company cannot compromise with the laborer, then the company would start losing money because labor would be ridiculously overpriced. It's a failed business model that the state so openly embraces. It's no wonder California is failing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd24-2009nov24,0,1277280.story

Can you balance the budget? (Politics)

The LA Times has put up their user-friendly approach to the California budget. It's designed to show that it's impossible to balance the budget without raising taxes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-statebudget-fl,0,95571.htmlstory?sel=2/4/10/33/12/27/30/32/42/44/49/54/9/29/19/34/47/11/26/43/45/50/52/53/37/35/36/38/40/51/41/23/24/

That's my solution. With it, the state is still $4,000,000,000 in the hole and I'm really out of options since I'm not going to choose things that are illegal. So how else do you make up $3,000,000,000. I think the state could get close if it tolled all major roadways and made those tolls pay for the roads. Then the surface streets would be paid for with the gas tax. Through this approach, you may still need a gas tax increase, but the goal is for the roads to be budget neutral. That itself would save a ton of money.

Would I attack prop 98? Of course. Would it be successful? Of course not, so it's not something that could fix the current mess. More like a down the road kind of thing.

What would really get the state out of the red though is population growth. This is where local governments come in. These municipalities must loosen zoning laws so that housing prices can come down via more housing units getting built. More people, more tax revenue.

If you have more solutions, post them here.

Bike and Bus Lanes (Transportation)

One of the most surprising things about this city is our lack of alternative transportation options. The streets are almost exclusively dedicated to cars. If you want to ride a bike, you will find yourself overwhelmed by vehicular traffic or a lack of sidewalk space. If you want to take a bus, you'll find a long commute where most of the time the driver is fighting his or her way through traffic.

There is a solution though. The problem lies with how we view our streets. Before the dawn of the automobile, streets were crowded with people. streetcars, horses, etc. The modern view of streets is that they are only for cars and that other modes of transportation just get in the way. But what would be the advantage to allowing other modes of transportation on streets? Well, hopefully you will get extra capacity and will give people cheaper options to get to where they need to go. Making this city cheaper to live in is a great goal to shoot for.

So how can this be acheived? I suggest that on major thoroughfares we dedicate one lane as an HOV lane. In addition, we should make the lanes slightly smaller so that we can fit a bike lane. The HOV lane would be for cars that are carrying a certain number of people and buses. It is easy to see how this will improve the capacity of the corridor. The bike lane will give people other options for getting to work so as to lessen the amount of cars on the street. These are the main benefits of these bike/bus lanes. However, by fitting in a bike lane, there will be another added benefit called traffic calming. Because the lanes are smaller, cars will go slower and so streets will be friendlier to pedestrians. This plan will improve transportation for drivers, for bikers, for bus riders, and for walkers. The best part of this plan is that there is not much cost associated with it. Just repaint the streets and put up some signs. This is something that can be done very easily and will immediately bring benefits to this city.

What is there not to like about this plan? There would be less cars on the road so the fact that they will move a little slower really does not matter. Commute times by car really should stay the same. For people who use other forms of transportation, however, they would see a much less strenuous commute.