Zoning and Cost of Living in Westwood Village

One of the common complaints around UCLA (at least for the parents) is the very high cost of living and the very crowded conditions. To share a small room with two other people can cost about $800 a month, and that was a few years ago (though to be fair it does include the cost of food). You also had to deal with no parking, a hike up some hills, slow elevators, scant washing machines and dryers, no air conditioning, a bathroom that you must share with the entire floor, etc. Now the school has been improving conditions in these so called halls, but there is still no parking and a communal bathroom.

How do they get away with this? They get a huge subsidy from the country; the problem is that most people do not know about it because it is an indirect benefit. The biggest secret that first-years at UCLA do not know is that the university owns a few apartment buildings around the school. You get a much larger room, have to share it with less people per unit area, get a bathroom exclusive to the room, and parking is cheap. You even get air conditioning and a full kitchen. You do not get food with it, but at only around $650 a month, these rooms are a comparative steal. Why does the university own these buildings? Because of the problem that is the rest of Westwood Village. All of this land is built up to the zoning capacity. This means that even though rents are high enough that new, taller structures are warranted, they cannot be built. The county is limiting the density in this area.

How bad is the problem? One only needs to look at the parking situation to determine that. You can drive around for 20 minutes around the area sometime in the afternoon without finding a parking spot, and when you do it is probably a spot that can only be used for 2 hours at a time. Most new structures include plenty of parking at low rates for their residents. Most of the buildings here are at least 30 years old and so do not have that parking that most new buildings have. How much has demand for housing risen in those 30 years? Probably much more than supply has risen. A bachelor apartment on Gayley without parking and air conditioning can cost $950 a month. That is just one room. But what choice do residents have? Everything in Westwood is expensive, and zoning is at capacity.

But what about traffic? Increasing density would presumably increase traffic, but this is not much of an issue. Most of the traffic in this area is caused by people driving from UCLA to the 405 or people driving around looking for a parking spot. Allowing more housing units would decrease this parking spot hunting traffic since new buildings tend to include parking. There is just no good reason to limit density as the county has done for this area. It is time to speak bluntly; zoning is capped so that UCLA can charge high rents and so that nearby property owners can live in the past. The students are cheated for the benefit of the rich.

GOP lawmakers threaten to withhold votes unless environmental rules are rewritten: Good for them

The LA Times takes a look at Republican demands for streamlining environmental legislation and how Democrats are crying fowl.

Full Story Here

The handful of Republican lawmakers most likely to provide crucial votes for Gov. Jerry Brown's budget plan are threatening to withhold their support without a dramatic rewriting of state environmental law.

The demand, pushed in private talks with the governor, would curtail lawsuits against projects threatening ecological damage, grant waivers to big telecommunications companies and exempt many urban developments from environmental review.

Before these writers go on to describe how getting rid of these regulations would lead to an absolutely miserable state, let me just say that the state's business climate already is miserable. How miserable is it you ask? Well Chief Executive.net ranked it as dead last in the country (that's 51st place because Washington D.C. was included).

Let's keep that in mind as we continue to read on through this article.

The legislators have declined to share the details of their proposal publicly, but draft legislation to overhaul the law was obtained by The Times.

Sweeping changes in the California Environmental Quality Act would stand little chance of approval through the normal legislative process, which Democrats — environmentalists' usual allies — control. But the governor's budget cannot pass without some Republican votes, and GOP lawmakers see an opportunity to win long-sought concessions.

Environmentalists expressed outrage at the Republicans' bid. Bill Magavern, director of Sierra Club California, said that what the legislators want amounts to a "wholesale gutting" of the law.

"They're using the state's fiscal crisis as leverage to try to reward the big developers," he said. The proposal "would freeze communities out of the planning process."

The proposal was presented to the governor and legislative leaders by five Republican senators considered key to any budget deal with Brown, as they are the only GOP senators actively negotiating. The lawmakers are also pushing to reduce pensions for government workers, place stricter limits on state spending and overhaul the state tax code.

Strange that just yesterday George Skelton described compromise as being the thing that Republicans were not willing to do. I know these people do not speak for George Skelton, but do you find it interesting that it is compromise when it favors Democrats and when it does not favor them it is essentially extortion?

Besides that, I wonder when this article will mention what loosening regulations would mean for the state's business climate. Let's find out.

Brown is also talking with some Republicans in the Assembly, where he needs support as well. Most Republicans in the Legislature, however, oppose the Brown plan because it would ask voters to extend some taxes due to expire July 1.

The five lawmakers say activists are overstating the potential impact of the environment proposal. They say their goal is to stop frivolous lawsuits that can tie up projects.

"We wanted to streamline so there could not be as many levels of lawsuits," said Sen. Bill Emmerson (R-Hemet).

The proposal was written by legislative attorneys at the request of Sen. Anthony Cannella (R-Ceres), who is negotiating with Brown alongside Emmerson, Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto), Sen. Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) and Sen. Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach). The lawmakers would speak only generally about the proposal, declining to discuss the details that most concern environmentalists.

"It's evolving," Berryhill said.

The proposal would sharply limit Californians' ability to go to court to challenge a construction project's environmental impact report — a document critical to final approval. The state attorney general would still be able to file such lawsuits.

Citizens would keep limited rights to file litigation, but only by making a deposit to the court of $50,000, or 1% of a construction project's costs if that amount is smaller.

I do not generally like limiting the ability of individuals to file lawsuits, but I also do not like lawsuits based on rights that do not exist (for instance, my supposed right to tell my neighbor what he can or cannot build on his property). The real problem is pollution, anyway, and we are already severely restricted in filing lawsuits for that, as class action lawsuits against polluters are all but illegal.

Telecommunications companies seeking to expand their broadband networks would receive exemptions from environmental rules for related construction. Such a change would be a boon to firms like AT&T, which has contributed a total of $38,100 in campaign money to the five Republican senators since 2009.

AT&T spokesman Lane Kasselman declined to say whether AT&T was involved in drafting the legislation.

"AT&T supports any effort that increases access to broadband, grows investment and means jobs for Californians," Kasselman said in a statement. "We look forward to working with the Legislature to accelerate this vital infrastructure."

This is how environmental legislation holds back progress. Would you like faster wireless service in more areas? Tough, apparently. Regulation stands in the way once again.

The GOP proposal also would broaden the kinds of projects allowed to skip certain steps in the environmental review process. Currently, such fast-tracking is generally reserved for residential construction in dense urban areas. Environmental activists say the proposed change would exempt nearly all urban and suburban development from rigorous review.

The plan also would ease some restrictions relating to greenhouse gas emissions caused by development.

Do you know why those projects are fast-tracked in dense urban areas? Because Democrats typically like that kind of development and want to impede all development elsewhere because they want you to live in city centers.

Cannella said in a statement that the proposed changes would help generate jobs.

"Unemployment is higher than 20% in some parts of my district; too many of our neighbors are out of work," the statement said. "We have to do everything in our power to give job creators the freedom to hire workers and get Californians back to work.

"The goal is to eliminate abuse of our state's environmental regulations by trial attorneys and other special-interest groups, while also protecting California's natural resources and creating jobs."

Finally some discussion on what this means for business. Unfortunately, though, the article only mentions the quotes and does not make a comment about it. It would have been interesting to see the writer's opinion since the tone was generally negative about the proposal at the beginning of the article.

Brown, who agreed with Republicans to keep the content of negotiations confidential, declined to comment on the environmental demands. Votes on his budget plan are scheduled in the Legislature on Wednesday, but that proposal does not include the changes sought by the five GOP lawmakers and is expected to fall short of approval.

"Essentially, none of these proposals get our budget under control," said Shannon Murphy, a spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles). "And they roll back some significant ground-breaking policies."

Environmentalists said no significant changes to the California Environmental Quality Act should be undertaken without a full public vetting.

The group of five Republicans "should have the integrity to debate it through the legislative process, not in secret behind closed doors," said Warner Chabot, chief executive of the California League of Conservation Voters. "Every poll that has been done in the last two decades in California shows the public supports stronger, not weaker, environmental laws."

Warner Chabot should take a look out his door. Environmentalist legislation may be getting us cleaner air, but people are leaving in droves. Businesses are gone and people are right there with them. Housing prices are through the roof.

I'm not saying that environmental laws are a total loss to the economy and that they are always bad. On the contrary, I think that pollution is a big problem. However, I do not think that these top-heavy controls work or are even efficient. Why not let individuals and groups bring their lawsuits into court and work out deals with polluters? The people would see compensation for bad air and companies would have an incentive to decrease pollution. Setting arbitrary limits and rules about pollution do not work and only feed the bureaucratic beast. Red tape causes businesses to leave. Less regulation causes businesses to come back.

George Skelton Lied, or at Least Willingly Skewed the Truth

General fund spending per $100 of Californians' personal income in the next fiscal year is projected to be the lowest ($5.05) since Ronald Reagan was governor. (Reagan had righted the sinking ship by raising taxes a record amount.)

This was from the article that I just commented on. At the time, I did not quite know just how to respond to the claim, until I found The U.S. Budget and Economy blog.

From 2000 to 2001, average total spending was about $141 billion. From 2008 to 2009, it was about $200 billion. Maintaining spending per capita and accounting for inflation, spending should only have increased to $198 billion. It has exceeded this. That is an extra $2 billion, and that is only since 2000 when state spending had increased dramatically.

The point is, George Skelton is lying through his teeth to make Democrats look good. He is not including the special fund and bond fund into his calculations, especially the special fund, which has exploded. When those are taken into account, the evidence shows that we are spending too much, even relative to levels that were already far too high in 2000. Would going back to 1991 spending kill us? People survived back then so I assume we could do it again.

Tax increases will only validate their bad spending policies and will not solve the problem that is too much spending, mostly on prisons and pensions.

Democrats stand alone on budget cuts? Give me a break.

Geroge Skelton is at it again, blaming Republicans for a problem, but offering no real solution of his own.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-budget-20110314,0,1755546.column

There's a common complaint voiced by disgruntled Californians, especially political conservatives: Sacramento's spending is out of control. That's why the state still faces a hellish deficit.

Guess what Skelton, that complaint is common because it is real.

And it's all the Democrats' fault. They run the place.

Never mind that:

• California governors possess enormous veto power over spending. And for 23 of the last 28 years, a Republican has occupied the governor's office.

The last Republican was no conservative, and it is in the past 10-15 years that the problem has really developed. If spending remained at 1990-1991 levels adjusted for population growth and inflation, we would have a $15 billion surplus right now. Is anyone seriously going to argue that we did not have enough spending back then?

• Voters have gone on their own spending sprees at the ballot box: bullet trains, stem cell research, after-school programs.

• Republican Texas is almost as deep in the red with its budget as is California.

Yes voters have screwed up, but Democrats have supported those measures, have they not? Furthermore, why this focus on party line? The problem is spending. It does not matter what Republican Texas did. They spent too much, they need to roll it back.

• Even under the rosiest scenario, with Gov. Jerry Brown attaining an extension of temporary tax hikes, spending from the state general fund during the next fiscal year is slated to be 17.5% less than it was three years ago. Spending will have dropped $18 billion, from $103 billion to $85 billion. In fact, three years ago, the legislative analyst was forecasting a $125-billion general fund budget for 2011-12.

But it's still heaps higher than it was just 10 years ago, but let's conveniently ignore that.

• General fund spending per $100 of Californians' personal income in the next fiscal year is projected to be the lowest ($5.05) since Ronald Reagan was governor. (Reagan had righted the sinking ship by raising taxes a record amount.)

Something about this figure rubs me the wrong way. I want to look it up, because looking at the graph I posted before, it just does not make sense. I cannot just outright deny it, but it deserves scrutiny to say the least.

No question, Democrats over the years have been guilty on multiple counts of budget bloating and check kiting.

But this week, trying to partly close a $26.6-billion deficit hole, they hope to pass a budget that cuts programs by $12.5 billion. And if you don't think most of these are real cuts, take a close look. But avert your eyes from the elderly poor, the disabled and sick welfare kids. Some sights aren't pleasant.

Health and human services — programs for people without financial political muscle — would take by far the sharpest whack, roughly $6 billion, in a budget approved by Democrats on a two-house conference committee. No Republican voted for the budget bill.

They didn't vote for it, Skelton, because it is not enough. We're still deep in the red, and cutting a little bit just won't do it.

Democrats voted to:

• Reduce monthly SSI/SAP grants for seniors and the disabled to the federal minimum: $830, down from $845. That includes any Social Security they might be eligible for. Savings: $192 million. Two years ago, the grant was $907.

Cry me a river, why are we giving anything more than the federal minimum? They could have saved up money for themselves or can find charity if the situation is desperate enough.

• Cut Cal WORKS (welfare) grants by 8%, to $638 from $694 for a family of three in a high-cost county. Savings: $300 million. In all, $1.1 billion is being slashed from Cal WORKS, including reducing the adult time limit for benefits from five years to four.

We already have federal charity. We don't need state charity at all. This program should be completely eliminated.

• Reduce Medi-Cal funding by $1.6 billion. This includes a 10% rate reduction for providers, already among the lowest-paid in the nation. Co-pays are to be required of patients, ranging from $5 for a doctor visit to $50 for emergency room care and $100 per day at a hospital (maximum $200). Also, there'll be no more money for over-the-counter cold medicine or for nutritional supplements unless the recipient is tube-fed.

Again, another program that the Feds already have. There's no need for California to expand on it. Face it Skelton, we spend too much on social safety nets, and we get no economic gain from them.

"Two years ago we cut dental services for people on Medi-Cal," says Elizabeth Landsberg, lobbyist for the Western Center on Law and Poverty. "We won't pay to save teeth, only to pull them. Now for people who can't eat because they don't have teeth, we won't pay for nutrition they can ingest."

• Eliminate child care for most 11- and 12-year-old children of working welfare moms. Savings: $39 million.

"There was a good reason why Pete Wilson funded this [babysitting program] back in 1997," says Mike Herald, another poverty center lobbyist.

"Research showed that children left alone were more likely to get in trouble with the law. Wilson didn't do it because he was a soft-hearted liberal. He did it because it would be more expensive if we didn't do it. Pete had this one right."

Lowering the minimum wage would get them a job and off the streets. It would eliminate this spending and increase tax revenue. Try again George.

There's a very long list. And you don't have to be a bleeding heart to cringe. Plenty of other cuts will affect the middle class, such as:

• Hits of $500 million to the University of California, $575 million to Cal State University and $400 million to community colleges. These most likely will lead to more student fee hikes.

Take a look at that budget. Education spending has been relatively constant though general spending has increased. Something is draining the budget, can we address pensions?

Skelton then goes on with specific cuts, again blaming Republicans for not going along. I won't defend them, but Skelton won't just say that these cuts are not enough. He knows it, but he dodges the issue. It's just a smear article.

Republicans haven't supported the Democrats' slashed budget. Nor have they offered any meaningful alternative, let alone suggested deeper gouges. Spending's running wild? Not even Republican lawmakers seem to believe that.

Look at the chart, Skelton, it's all there. Quit pandering to Democrats and maybe you'll educate a few people for once.

Percentage of Jobs Provided by the Government

Apparently a whopping 13.6% of jobs in Los Angeles are furnished by the government. But before you go and say big deal, think also about companies that have cushy contracts with the government. As far as I can tell that number is not available, but we can be certain that it is huge. The fact is, Los Angeles (along with many other metropolitan areas) is too dependent on this job welfare.

Government jobs necessarily depend on the wealth creation of productive jobs. As we all know, government jobs pay much, much more than private sector jobs. Sure, these jobs produce their own wealth, but do they produce more than they pay? Not even close. These jobs would not be possible without sucking away wealth from those who are creating it. Is this a fair and equitable system? It seems that the government, which is supposed to make a better system, is only creating more injustice.

But ignore the moral argument for just a few moments. Looking at the economics of the issue should tell you that government jobs are a bad idea. In a job market, a potential employee will naturally go to where his net benefit is highest. So in a market between private employers and the government, the government always wins. A private company cannot match the benefits offered by the government because the government has a virtually limitless pool of funds to offer, whereas a company has to stay within its profit margin to satisfy investors. The business model of the company ensures the net benefit of the existence of the company, but there is no such model for government entities. How do we make sure that those institutions are necessary if they do not have to live within a profit margin? In all likelihood, most of these jobs are not necessary, and so they decrease the total wealth creation that could be achieved if instead the people working for the government were working for private businesses.

For the people who take these jobs, it creates a sense of entitlement. The work that they do is not worth this much. Their standard of living then comes to depend on this handout rather than on the fruit of real wealth creation like those in private sector jobs have. This kind of system sets up a perverse incentive toward wealth destruction rather than wealth creation.

If we want to see a vibrant, growing city, then one of the key issues would be to decrease the provision of government jobs and ending the punishment of private businesses with excessive regulations and high taxes.

Do You Know How Much Stoplights Cost?

3.7% of the budget, it seems. But are they really necessary? Transportation costs account for nearly 10% of the budget of the city of Los Angeles. But is it a wise investment?

First, let's talk about any investments in freeways. All of the roads are at capacity in Los Angeles, it seems, so if anything we're not making enough of an investment in the roads. But is this really a problem? Maybe an alternative solution is needed. Congestion pricing is that solution. In its typical form, congestion pricing increases the cost of driving on a freeway as demand rises. So the highest prices would be during rush hour and the lowest prices sometime in the middle of the night. What this would do, in essence, is to encourage driving during off-peak hours and it would decrease rush hour traffic. Is this just a benefit to the rich? Two arguments: first, more foods and luxury items and household goods are available to the rich because they have more money, but does this mean that we should all have equal access to those goods? Of course not. What would be the incentive to achieve? Secondly, the funds gained from such a pricing scheme would mean more money to build new roads and increase capacity. Since Los Angeles ranks 8th among US metropolitan areas in lane miles per capita, maybe more roads would be a good thing. After all, we have a unique landscape in this city which means we drive more per capita as well. Bring on the new roads! They're long overdue.

The other issue is stoplights. Now these are simply unnecessary. As evidenced elsewhere (and a link will be provided at the end of this post), streelights do nothing to aid the flow of traffic. They simply impose top-heavy controls that are inefficient and cause accidents. A roadway without stoplights works much better and has less accidents. Why? Well for one, you would not go through an uncontrolled intersection unless you were completely sure that no one was coming at you from the other direction. Also, stoplights tend to get in the way of full use of the intersection. Huge swaths of the intersection are available when people are making left turns, but they go unused. Uncontrolled intersections use this capacity and traffic moves faster.

So Los Angeles is in a good position to save money by congestion pricing roads and getting rid of some stoplights. Traffic will improve and the city will have more money.

I know you're still suspicious about the stoplights thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTI_NthVShc

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.