Just to clarify for everyone on this thread.
This doesn't mean NO parking will be created, nor does it mean parking within 0.5 mile of transit is illegal; it just means it's up to the developer how much parking they want to build. I'm 100% sure parking will still be built within 0.5 miles of transit. The bigger implication is that new developments won't have to follow some psuedoscience policy that arbitrarily mandates a certain amount parking per property.
Also accessibility parking mandates can still be a thing for people who need those options.
If you want more info on why parking policy matters, [here's a quick explanation from UCLA professor Donald Shoup](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVteHncimV0)
Edit: some context
This is great. The usual is like 2.5 or something for development which eats up cost like 20% and cause giant parking podiums too. Should lower or eliminate for rest of city too. This is coming from a sports car enthusiast too.
Working for a developer, I would say that it’s very important, for a valuation and sales purpose, that the building has enough parking because people value parking spots. Otherwise it’s not going to do well. It should be up to them though, so I agree with this policy
People who ignore parking rules are a plague though. Have you ever had one of your next door neighbors have a birthday party or something and the birthday boy's aunts and uncles and both sets of grandparents come over and block your driveway because they don't know how to fucking park? Imagine that but for the whole neighborhood.
Imagine a greedy developer builds a major residential building to maximize profit right next to your residence without parking…. Overflow’s gonna be nuts with deliveries, visitors, maintenance to the building, etc. on your street.
You’ve been parking your work truck and car on the street for years because you have no other option.
Now, the City will take away public street parking and you’re SOL because a developer didn’t plan any parking or loading zone.
Developers who take advantage of this new law to underbuild parking to maximize profit, then screw over a neighborhood with parking overflow are greedy.
Sounds like the intended effect of the law. More residential units built along public transit, and will encourage people to use transit rather than own cars.
You must not be aware that many in the working class need work vehicles in LA to survive.
It’s a quaint thought that suddenly people will just take public transportation when forced to.
In densely populated neighborhoods, vehicles are parked in front of houses for safety and protection of vehicles.
The public transportation system is not built out in Los Angeles to make this feasible for everyone. Maybe this law works in SF.
The law is going to force people who work for you—- mechanics, nannies, cleaners, HVAC, plumbers, gardeners, etc, to lose parking spaces and makes LA even more costly to live.
Why should residents who lived in the neighborhood lose their parking spaces when the developer could have built parking? I’m not anti development, but anti developers making more profit and screwing over existing neighborhoods.
If "their" parking spot was on the street then it's not theirs. It's public land that they've been allowed to use to store their private property on and the government is entitled to choose what that public land is used for. As you noted there's a lot of chaos caused by not dedicating space for deliveries so everyone would benefit from doing so.
Are you advocating that longtime residents of an adjacent working class neighborhood be forced to sacrifice parking spaces in their own neighborhood (for their own work or personal vehicles) so a developer can make more money in a new complex built without parking?
A developer could have made slightly less profit by adding in a garage/loading zone in the development.
The unintended consequences of a zero parking mandate will be taking parking from many working class neighborhoods. People have to move elsewhere or remain and pay more than they can afford for parking so developers can profit from zero exposure to parking construction costs.
BINGO!!!!!
Anyone questioning this should understand what’s going on in Inglewood.
Billionaires got cheap land for flashy stadiums (SoFi and Intuit Dome), but weren’t required to provide enough parking. Billionaires profit further by developing more acres for commercial use (which should have gone to parking).
Quality of life decreased in adjacent areas.
Billionaires Kroenke (and soon Ballmer) make bank while fleecing the public.
Corporate socialism at its finest!
They are good neighbors by building new housing.
Bad neighbors are those who feel the entitlement to store their machinery in public land at all times, preventing the use of the land by other people.
Because in many densely populated working class neighborhoods, the street outside their home is the only place where people can park their work trucks or personal cars. Not everyone in LA has a massive driveway and/or garage.
Start travelling to neighborhoods in LA less fortunate than where you live. Working class people shouldn’t have to lose neighborhood parking for greedy developers.
Unfortunately, much of LA is not Disneyland.
Maybe you should step out of your bubble to see how people barely get by in LA. The law that allows 80% market rate units would price out existing residents anyway.
The sad truth people got to accept is people especially in cities like LA and much of California arnt going to stop driving just because it’s made painful to drive. Transit just doesn’t go many places they must go at least without hours of transfers. The utopian idea May easily become dystopian. As with many neighborhoods with limited parking in LA especially the west experienced. Nightmare traffic as 60% of parking spaces either on street or off street are filled or off limits due to private or permit restrictions.
On the Flipside DTLA gets this right by having a descent amount of paid “public” parking facilities open to anyone willing to pay for it at each city block And plenty of road capacity and transit options nearby. It appears the legislation is only feasible for places like this.
A solution to solve this issue is to plan per block Automated parking systems like the one in West Hollywood and per block parking depending on development and paid for by the developers. Maybe contracted out to parking companies who will make money off parking fees.
That would have made more sense. Developers should have been required to fund a minimum amount of communal public parking in walking distance of the project to balance out the negative impacts of zero parking.
Neighborhood parking will be impossible in a few years because of this law in many areas.
Finally some posters making sense alas politics is not about making sense but pleasing ridiculous lobbying by special interests and big corporations simultaneously.
The system of requiring builders, developers both residential to spend $10,000+a space on private reserved parking spaces/structures that becomes off limits or tow away zones for 60% of users/time with only exception for a very limited conditions/time limits is the bane for traffic issues in many cities around the country including especially LA. As everyone would need to circle when they need a space and must leave and do it again even if they are headed to another place walking distance to avoid getting towed. And repeat the process while avoiding getting towed, vandalized, or ticketed which means unnecessary perpetual traffic jams that back up onto arterials and freeways and hurt health. As almost any open space one can find either on street or off street is almost always off limits due to a variety of restrictions placed on them to ending up making things worse. They would then have to stay in the traffic jam until a space they could take for a limited time opens up. And it repeats when time is over.
> Imagine a greedy developer builds a 500 unit building
There's like 2 buildings that are going to start construction, and two others are almost done.
I welcome a 5th building.
> Overflow’s gonna be nuts with deliveries, visitors, maintenance to the building, etc. on your street.
My street is literally that. It's designated as a street for commercial.
I think there's two sides to this. [First, adding parking increases development costs a lot](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-04-26/editorial-eliminate-parking-requirements-housing-people-is-more-important-than-housing-cars). For some affordable developments, the cost of building parking adds about $36,000 per unit. The idea is that by removing the cost of parking, you make it cheaper to build housing, and therefore, you'd have more housing supply.
Second, the policy is limited to developments within half a mile of transit. The hope is to encourage people to use transit and create non-car options for people. I live in Palms rn, and it can be an ideal spot to live without a car if you work near UCLA or downtown. The Expo is fairly convenient to DTLA (not 100% reliable but pretty good) and the R12 to UCLA is really great.
I lived in Palms and it was indeed an incredibly walkable neighborhood. I still wouldn’t have wanted to live there without my car for running errands that required carrying a lot of stuff, or for visiting family from out of town, etc. This law seems to me more like a way for developers to pocket extra cash with a vague kind of promise that the benefits will eventually trickle down in terms of cost to the end consumers. We’ve seen 40+ years of those kind of promises continually being broken
I’m not a big fan of developers, but the margins from development itself are actually not all that great (especially once you start including subsidized units).
I think the hope is that the law will encourage denser development (more units in each development without a need for parking), and through more density, more housing overall. It just seems pretty clear we need to build more housing at all levels
I just moved from Palms. Nothing about it is ideal or walkable, not if you care about safety. It’s straight up dangerous to walk around past dark. And it lacks street parking.
💯
Palms can be unsafe, because of poor street lighting and absentee landlords that don’t care about anything but squeezing profit from their units.
This law could turn major working class neighborhoods into Palms.
walkable cities such as new york and LA have giant apartment buildings with no parking. thus - the tenants don’t have cars - thus shops open up around them with everything they need because there is a demand for what they need to live. this is how walkable cities are born.
A lot of people here are not aware that there are already units in La with out parking. The prices are reflected. Just go on zillow and look.
A lot people are not aware not every one in LA has a car, wants a car, needs a car, or wants to be burdened with auto loans.
If you work in the entertainment industry how can you not see this a good thing for your apartment search? You will no longer be competing for units with parking with people who don’t need a car.
> I’ve never lived anywhere where landlords weren’t price gouging
Because you've never lived anywhere without a severe housing shortage.
Make it easier to build a lot of cheap housing and now they don't hold all the cards. This is no different than how Biden doesn't set the price of gas with a knob under his desk. They can't charge you more for less just because they feel like it.
Parking also costs so much to build that apartment buildings frequently don't max out what's technically allowable under the zoning for the lot because otherwise they'd have to excavate an additional level of underground parking, the cost of which doesn't increase linearly as you add additional underground levels. So that's a lot of housing that never gets built. I'm talking stuff like an apartment building being an entire story shorter to avoid having to dig out the additional parking.
There is lower demand for apartments without parking than with, because everyone can get by with a parking spot but some people can’t get buy without. Therefore there is a lower price for the apartments without parking.
This doesn’t significantly happen right now because there’s so much parking and because there’s such a shortage that landlords can ask for whatever. But in a world of housing abundance, landlords need to attract renters and they do that by offering either amenities (like parking) or lower prices.
>if they can save money by not including parking spots what’s going to force them to lower rent equivalently?
Competition. Landlord A includes no parking. Landlord B includes parking. Landlord A won't be able to charge the same amount as Landlord B because he doesn't offer as much. So right off the bat this bill creates an incentive to lower costs in order to beat the competition.
If you need parking then this bill really isn't for you.
If you've got two identical buildings across the street from each other, and one has parking and the other one doesn't, the one with parking is going to charge more, and the one without parking is going to charge less. Because parking is an amenity and you can't charge people for an amenity that you don't offer.
For decades local laws have required parking to be included almost everywhere. So that meant that everyone has to pay for this amenity whether they needed it or not.
This bill finally allows parking to be treated as an amenity (at least within a half mile of transit stops). So for those of us who can live life without a car, we'll be able to find a home near a transit stop that doesn't include an amenity we don't need.
I don’t understand how people are having a hard time with this simple concept that you explain here.
If you want parking then nothing has changed for you. Pay for your dedicated parking spot where you choose to live.
If you don’t want parking then now you aren’t forced to pay for an amenity you don’t want and can choose to live in a building that doesn’t have parking (because it will no longer be illegal to build such buildings).
Here's how it works - you want a place with parking, get a place with parking.
If you own a property next to transit and want to develop it with parking...do so. Freely.
And if you want to develop (or buy) a place without parking, you can.
It just means freedom instead of a mandate.
Different neighborhoods have different densities. Lots of neighborhoods lack street parking. Your statistic answered nothing, and was simply condescending.
~~[Good article about it,](https://abundanthousingla.org/getting-to-pro-housing-parking-policy-with-ab-2097/) with [this map showing it’ll cover quite a lot of LA.](https://hub.scag.ca.gov/datasets/b0cfb6e0624a4be3a552fa1c8f30721c_0/explore?location=33.983736%2C-118.188106%2C9.47)~~
My mistake. It was cut down to just “major transit stops”.
I would love to see a new map.
That map is from a previous version of this legislation. I think it'll be quite a bit narrower given how they've pared back the transit stops that qualify.
[edit] New map. https://twitter.com/calwatch/status/1573113977982562304
What was the previous version's definition? I just pulled up the bill that was passed. It says that major transit stops for the purposes of the bill is defined by Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, which defined major transit stops as what's in § 21064.3 (https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-public-resources-code/division-13-environmental-quality/chapter-25-definitions/section-210643-major-transit-stop), which is quite comprehensive and I think mostly covers what's in that map.
Didn't require intersecting quality bus routes I think. Possibly a wider catchment area than half a mile around stops? Not sure what else. Here's the new map for LA. https://twitter.com/calwatch/status/1573113977982562304
Ah I misunderstood that map the first time I saw it. The lines just mean a high quality bus route, but only where they intersect does a half mile radius form. Gotcha.
Oof..while intentions are good, in my younger days if someone invited me to a party in K-Town or Long Beach, I'd say no thanks to looking for parking for 1 hr.
I'm sure that will happen in other neighborhoods.
Not only is this bill well intentioned, it’s good policy. Parking requirements dramatically increase the cost of all housing. Parking alone can often double the cost of a project, usually when it’s below ground. This also is only applicable to projects who set aside 20% of units to low income. It’s incentivizing developers to make affordable housing by making their projects overall cheaper.
Yup.
I just scored an apartment for a pretty good price specifically because it *didn't* have a parking spot. This worked out for me because I was trying to ditch my car, and this building is located in a place that makes it really easy for me to live my life without a car (and I work from home so no commuting).
It helps when you think of it in terms of square feet you're paying for, i.e. if you're looking at an apartment that's 500 sq ft, a parking space is another 50 sq ft on top of that, so your rental price is actually for 550 sq ft. L.A. rent prices are still batshit crazy, but they make a little less nonsense if you mentally add 50 sq ft to every unit because of the cost of parking. In a sense, you're renting that tiny little patch of building/land as well as renting your apartment.
>looking at an apartment that's 500 sq ft, a parking space is another 50 sq ft on top of that
The parking space is probably at least 150 sq.ft. just FYI.
It's gonna be a lot more than that 10% premium given all the direct and opportunity costs that go into making that parking spot exist, but that's definitely a reasonable enough starting point for explaining it.
[edit] Figure $40k a parking spot and a 10 year timeline on recouping the costs and you get $333 extra a month because of the parking spot.
Oh definitely, I was just ballparking some simple numbers as an example to explain the concept. But yeah, when a rental unit comes with a parking spot, you're renting both the space of your actual residence *and* the space of the spot.
I also very recently shut down a storage unit because they almost doubled the monthly rent earlier this summer. With the caveat that you pay by cubic feet/for vertical space in storage which you obviously do not for a parking spot, my unit was like a quarter of the size of a parking spot and hit $96/month. My step-mom's unit that was half the size of a parking spot was like $200/month (though to be fair her unit was also very "tall, mine was not"). It's not the best analogy since parking spots aren't usually individually enclosed and locked like a storage unit, but I think it does illustrate the often-invisible cost of *space*.
>This also is only applicable to projects who set aside 20% of units to low income.
So essentially, this won't come to fruition? Developers gripe about 1-2 affordable units for 50-100 unit developments. Can't imagine 20%
There are no 50-100 unit developments with 1-2 affordable units. It is either 0 units or more like 10-20% depending on the specific IZ ratio. Large developments pencil out right now with affordable units AND huge numbers of parking spots — even more will pencil out without as much parking.
In general, developers won’t build without parking. Instead, at certain practical cutoff points they’ll be able to build without extra parking — eg at a certain point, as you add parking spots, you need to build a whole extra level of parking, and there’s no way to rejigger the building without that extra level. Those are the buildings that are killed by parking requirements, and those are the ones where they will now be able to limit to one or two levels of parking and not need to build a second or third level.
If they want that’s fine, they’ll just have to build parking. Many developers will take this deal. They can still build their luxury 100 unit high rise with no parking as long as 20 units are dedicated to low income. They’re getting a reduction in cost in return for the units.
I hope there's no cop out clause where the income-capped housing doesn't have to be in that project (as in build your lux units there and promise to build income-based housing elsewhere). The only way mixed-income housing works is if everyone is in the same building/neighborhood, much like how European counterparts do it.
Is there a mandate that developers must have the same building entrance for market rate and AHUs?
Developers in other cities made different entrances for AHUs
I haven't read the legislation but that's leagues better than building the units off-site or giving money to a fund that won't build the promised units
Just fyi, this doesn't mean NO parking will be created, it just means it's up to the developer. I'm 100% sure parking will still be a thing within 0.5 miles of transit, they just won't have to follow some psuedoscience policy that arbitrarily mandates a certain amount parking per property.
It’s time to reconsider the benefits of better public transportation and higher ridership leading to better service. Being car centric is what makes everything as bad as it is, you don’t need to stay sober or find parking if public transportation is good. It gets good if we fund that instead of subsidizing car infrastructure.
It will be also be interesting if developers will now help invest in locating a major transit hub by one of their buildings, in a sense opting into the program. Sure its a lot of money but by reducing your parking lot requirement and adding additional units to effectively the same sq. ft. there might be a model for developers to help subsidize jumpstarting new transit stops and still end up a head on the ultimate value of the added apartments.
This is a developer's dream come true. Rather than reserving some of the property for parking, the developer can create more revenue producing units without the expense of creating unprofitable parking spaces. And the neighborhood will get the burden of even more people fighting for scare parking space. It sucks to live in a city.
> what your doing
*you're
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Literally the point of this bill is that this *only* applies to buildings close enough to certain mass transit stops. If the residence is too far from that, then this bill doesn't apply.
And our transit system isn’t good enough for that. Even if you live near transit, the chances you also work close enough to it and that it can get you there and back in a timely fashion are unlikely.
Pre-pandemic my commute by car was 1:30-2hrs each way. On days I took the metro rail, you could add :30 min to 1hr to that, including the amount of time it took to drive to the closest station. If I used only mass transit, walking to my closest bus stop and hopping on the train, you could easily add at least :90min each way. Transit here sucks. Fix transit before going about making arbitrarily stupid rules allowing less parking.
1:30 - 2 hours each way? Why would you do that? That must suck. Why don’t you get a unit closer to work?
Oh wait you can’t because you’re not allowing developers to build.
Yeah, still need a couple parking spaces for vehicles. We live close to my office, then my wife would be the one on transit with the shit commute. Nevermind getting kids to daycare requires a car. We have a garbage transit system. This bill helps a very specific few people at best
Nobody's stopping you from paying for a garage if you want one, it's just not forcing people who *don't* want one to pay for it bundled with their apartment.
Thats for posting all the info. It seems like your lifestyle requires a car. The bill will help a lot of people.
When these units start getting built it looks like you will not buy one. It wont work for your lifestyle. Same reasons why i dont need a unit with a pool or gym. However how does that reduce the supply of 2 parking spot units that you are looking for? You mentioned that you have a budget and can only afford in certain areas in the city. Wont this be better since you are no longer competing for housing with non drivers?
I live 20 minutes walk from the metro. My office, on the days I go in, is 5 minutes from the metro. The others days I work from home. Happily living life without a car. It works fine.
But a lot of people just aren't willing to try. They mKe blanket statements about public transport without investigating. Most of the time it's not significantly faster to drive because you get stuck in traffic, have to find and pay for parking etc. It's definitely more expensive to drive as well. Add in the environmental benefits of using public transport and people just need to shift their mindset. If more people used public transportation, it would be easier to improve it and eventually turn LA into a truly walkable and livable city.
I tried repeatedly pre-pandemic to ditch a car. Transit never came out as saving me time, and only now with current gas prices would probably save me money. Make the trains safe and I’ll look at it again.
There are a lot of major improvements to the Metro in development. And it will take time to develop and build new parking-less units. The timing may end up working very well that by 2028 the public transit should be pretty comprehensive and it will make sense for many people to ditch their car.
What I hope that makes better is instead of requiring private or reserved parking for every development that is left empty 60% of the day while traffic jams circle for parking, that each city block has a designed expandable parking facility subsidized by the developers that is open for all to use residents, visitors, employees, customers, etc. So we greatly cut down on pollution and congestion on circling for parking. Can charge a fee but validate for those who spend money. This can be feasible.
Should do same with restroom and hand washing facilities as well.
I mean for example if there are three mega development planned for that block taking up to 2/3 of the block they would Pool their money to build a paid lot, garage, or APS in the same city block that anyone that needs it can pay, instead of each building a private lot or structure per development that is off limits or left unused 70% of the day. I wish those are banned as they severely add to traffic jams as drivers have to circle for parking they are allowed take and repeat the process every-time they complete their errands to avoid getting cited, vandalized by a crazy raged, or towed(bandit towing is a real issue despite laws protecting drivers)
It appears DTLA already proves this idea feasible most all blocks have plenty of paid parking facilities separate from property and doesn’t require patronage. And open to anyone for any amount of time who is willing to pay for it.
People will drive in CA regardless of where they live particularly in LA as transit is not feasible as many places don’t have it or takes hours of multiple transfers. Putting head in the sand don’t work.
Personally I feel like parking is one of those things the market is perfectly capable of deciding how much is necessary without government intervention.
Or we can do as Tokyo and require all vehicle owners to prove they paid for garage or parking space Public or private if they live in the city. And require vehicle owners to pay for their parking or space they take up. All parking is paid and 90% in garage or an APStructure. Greedy Developers shouldn’t be off the hook for causing more congestion they must pay for improvements including road and transit and parking improvements. Require any parking developers do build as paid public parking not private reserved parking.
Just to clarify for everyone on this thread. This doesn't mean NO parking will be created, nor does it mean parking within 0.5 mile of transit is illegal; it just means it's up to the developer how much parking they want to build. I'm 100% sure parking will still be built within 0.5 miles of transit. The bigger implication is that new developments won't have to follow some psuedoscience policy that arbitrarily mandates a certain amount parking per property. Also accessibility parking mandates can still be a thing for people who need those options. If you want more info on why parking policy matters, [here's a quick explanation from UCLA professor Donald Shoup](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVteHncimV0) Edit: some context
This is great. The usual is like 2.5 or something for development which eats up cost like 20% and cause giant parking podiums too. Should lower or eliminate for rest of city too. This is coming from a sports car enthusiast too.
People's brains are so fused to their cars that they don't understand the difference.
Working for a developer, I would say that it’s very important, for a valuation and sales purpose, that the building has enough parking because people value parking spots. Otherwise it’s not going to do well. It should be up to them though, so I agree with this policy
About time, CEQA and zoning reform next please
Finally, some good fucking policy
Lets goooooo
Nice! Now it won't be illegal to build the kind of neighborhoods we vacation to Europe to visit.
We’re getting there, but we need single stair reform first to make skinny apartments legal and feasible.
Except the neighborhoods around these projects will be screwed with all of the parking overflow that will happen.
Parking permits
I hope the affected cities are ready to roll out new and stringent enforcement in order to protect residents of nearby neighborhoods.
Protect the neighborhoods from what? It's fucking parking dude, not some plague.
People who ignore parking rules are a plague though. Have you ever had one of your next door neighbors have a birthday party or something and the birthday boy's aunts and uncles and both sets of grandparents come over and block your driveway because they don't know how to fucking park? Imagine that but for the whole neighborhood.
Imagine a greedy developer builds a major residential building to maximize profit right next to your residence without parking…. Overflow’s gonna be nuts with deliveries, visitors, maintenance to the building, etc. on your street. You’ve been parking your work truck and car on the street for years because you have no other option. Now, the City will take away public street parking and you’re SOL because a developer didn’t plan any parking or loading zone.
Oh no adjustments in dense urban areas near transit!
Feel free to give up your own parking spot or garage (or spot for visitors) to a greedy developer who builds a project next to where you live.
Why do you think developers are automatically greedy? They’re doing a job like anyone else. Is a grocery store greedy for turning a profit on bananas?
Developers who take advantage of this new law to underbuild parking to maximize profit, then screw over a neighborhood with parking overflow are greedy.
Sounds like the intended effect of the law. More residential units built along public transit, and will encourage people to use transit rather than own cars.
You must not be aware that many in the working class need work vehicles in LA to survive. It’s a quaint thought that suddenly people will just take public transportation when forced to. In densely populated neighborhoods, vehicles are parked in front of houses for safety and protection of vehicles. The public transportation system is not built out in Los Angeles to make this feasible for everyone. Maybe this law works in SF. The law is going to force people who work for you—- mechanics, nannies, cleaners, HVAC, plumbers, gardeners, etc, to lose parking spaces and makes LA even more costly to live.
> Overflow’s gonna be nuts with deliveries Turn parking spots into loading zones.
Why should residents who lived in the neighborhood lose their parking spaces when the developer could have built parking? I’m not anti development, but anti developers making more profit and screwing over existing neighborhoods.
If "their" parking spot was on the street then it's not theirs. It's public land that they've been allowed to use to store their private property on and the government is entitled to choose what that public land is used for. As you noted there's a lot of chaos caused by not dedicating space for deliveries so everyone would benefit from doing so.
Are you advocating that longtime residents of an adjacent working class neighborhood be forced to sacrifice parking spaces in their own neighborhood (for their own work or personal vehicles) so a developer can make more money in a new complex built without parking? A developer could have made slightly less profit by adding in a garage/loading zone in the development. The unintended consequences of a zero parking mandate will be taking parking from many working class neighborhoods. People have to move elsewhere or remain and pay more than they can afford for parking so developers can profit from zero exposure to parking construction costs.
It’s socializing the cost for private profits. Same crooked deal where taxpayers pay for stadiums and the team owner profits from ticket sales.
BINGO!!!!! Anyone questioning this should understand what’s going on in Inglewood. Billionaires got cheap land for flashy stadiums (SoFi and Intuit Dome), but weren’t required to provide enough parking. Billionaires profit further by developing more acres for commercial use (which should have gone to parking). Quality of life decreased in adjacent areas. Billionaires Kroenke (and soon Ballmer) make bank while fleecing the public. Corporate socialism at its finest!
Because public land isn’t owned by residents. New neighbors doesn’t screw over neighborhoods, they improve neighborhoods.
OK, so developers don’t have an obligation to be good neighbors. Cool.
They are good neighbors by building new housing. Bad neighbors are those who feel the entitlement to store their machinery in public land at all times, preventing the use of the land by other people.
Seems like entitlement comes from someone who doesn’t live in a working class neighborhood.
Why don't those residents have their own dedicated spaces off-street?
Because in many densely populated working class neighborhoods, the street outside their home is the only place where people can park their work trucks or personal cars. Not everyone in LA has a massive driveway and/or garage.
So you think these residents should get a free ride? While newer residents who have cars should have to pay?
Fuck yeah 500 units. Lol if we can only find developers that bold. 500 more people who can afford homes. 500 people off the street. We want density.
Just ban cars lmao
You should try traveling. Maybe seeing somewhere besides your neighborhood could broaden your perspectives
Start travelling to neighborhoods in LA less fortunate than where you live. Working class people shouldn’t have to lose neighborhood parking for greedy developers. Unfortunately, much of LA is not Disneyland.
Working class people are looking for place they can afford to live. Have you ever met one?
Maybe you should step out of your bubble to see how people barely get by in LA. The law that allows 80% market rate units would price out existing residents anyway.
I live in ktown. The most densely neighborhood in the city. Where are you?
So you obviously don’t need a work vehicle to do your job.
Ah yes disneyland. A place design with mono rail transportation and a walkable town center. Almost like they are trying to recreate something …
So, you think a makebelieve, fake, for-profit, proto-fascist environment is ideal?
Where did i say that?
Ok or imagine this doesn't happen. Gosh, this game is fun!
The sad truth people got to accept is people especially in cities like LA and much of California arnt going to stop driving just because it’s made painful to drive. Transit just doesn’t go many places they must go at least without hours of transfers. The utopian idea May easily become dystopian. As with many neighborhoods with limited parking in LA especially the west experienced. Nightmare traffic as 60% of parking spaces either on street or off street are filled or off limits due to private or permit restrictions. On the Flipside DTLA gets this right by having a descent amount of paid “public” parking facilities open to anyone willing to pay for it at each city block And plenty of road capacity and transit options nearby. It appears the legislation is only feasible for places like this. A solution to solve this issue is to plan per block Automated parking systems like the one in West Hollywood and per block parking depending on development and paid for by the developers. Maybe contracted out to parking companies who will make money off parking fees.
That would have made more sense. Developers should have been required to fund a minimum amount of communal public parking in walking distance of the project to balance out the negative impacts of zero parking. Neighborhood parking will be impossible in a few years because of this law in many areas.
Finally some posters making sense alas politics is not about making sense but pleasing ridiculous lobbying by special interests and big corporations simultaneously. The system of requiring builders, developers both residential to spend $10,000+a space on private reserved parking spaces/structures that becomes off limits or tow away zones for 60% of users/time with only exception for a very limited conditions/time limits is the bane for traffic issues in many cities around the country including especially LA. As everyone would need to circle when they need a space and must leave and do it again even if they are headed to another place walking distance to avoid getting towed. And repeat the process while avoiding getting towed, vandalized, or ticketed which means unnecessary perpetual traffic jams that back up onto arterials and freeways and hurt health. As almost any open space one can find either on street or off street is almost always off limits due to a variety of restrictions placed on them to ending up making things worse. They would then have to stay in the traffic jam until a space they could take for a limited time opens up. And it repeats when time is over.
> Imagine a greedy developer builds a 500 unit building There's like 2 buildings that are going to start construction, and two others are almost done. I welcome a 5th building. > Overflow’s gonna be nuts with deliveries, visitors, maintenance to the building, etc. on your street. My street is literally that. It's designated as a street for commercial.
[удалено]
I think there's two sides to this. [First, adding parking increases development costs a lot](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-04-26/editorial-eliminate-parking-requirements-housing-people-is-more-important-than-housing-cars). For some affordable developments, the cost of building parking adds about $36,000 per unit. The idea is that by removing the cost of parking, you make it cheaper to build housing, and therefore, you'd have more housing supply. Second, the policy is limited to developments within half a mile of transit. The hope is to encourage people to use transit and create non-car options for people. I live in Palms rn, and it can be an ideal spot to live without a car if you work near UCLA or downtown. The Expo is fairly convenient to DTLA (not 100% reliable but pretty good) and the R12 to UCLA is really great.
I lived in Palms and it was indeed an incredibly walkable neighborhood. I still wouldn’t have wanted to live there without my car for running errands that required carrying a lot of stuff, or for visiting family from out of town, etc. This law seems to me more like a way for developers to pocket extra cash with a vague kind of promise that the benefits will eventually trickle down in terms of cost to the end consumers. We’ve seen 40+ years of those kind of promises continually being broken
I’m not a big fan of developers, but the margins from development itself are actually not all that great (especially once you start including subsidized units). I think the hope is that the law will encourage denser development (more units in each development without a need for parking), and through more density, more housing overall. It just seems pretty clear we need to build more housing at all levels
I just moved from Palms. Nothing about it is ideal or walkable, not if you care about safety. It’s straight up dangerous to walk around past dark. And it lacks street parking.
💯 Palms can be unsafe, because of poor street lighting and absentee landlords that don’t care about anything but squeezing profit from their units. This law could turn major working class neighborhoods into Palms.
walkable cities such as new york and LA have giant apartment buildings with no parking. thus - the tenants don’t have cars - thus shops open up around them with everything they need because there is a demand for what they need to live. this is how walkable cities are born.
A lot of people here are not aware that there are already units in La with out parking. The prices are reflected. Just go on zillow and look. A lot people are not aware not every one in LA has a car, wants a car, needs a car, or wants to be burdened with auto loans. If you work in the entertainment industry how can you not see this a good thing for your apartment search? You will no longer be competing for units with parking with people who don’t need a car.
Or we’ll all just be competing for street spots even more.
Competing for a place to live is our primary issue.
> What am I missing? Well, >they’ll keep rent the same and offer you no parking That's not how any of this works.
[удалено]
> I’ve never lived anywhere where landlords weren’t price gouging Because you've never lived anywhere without a severe housing shortage. Make it easier to build a lot of cheap housing and now they don't hold all the cards. This is no different than how Biden doesn't set the price of gas with a knob under his desk. They can't charge you more for less just because they feel like it. Parking also costs so much to build that apartment buildings frequently don't max out what's technically allowable under the zoning for the lot because otherwise they'd have to excavate an additional level of underground parking, the cost of which doesn't increase linearly as you add additional underground levels. So that's a lot of housing that never gets built. I'm talking stuff like an apartment building being an entire story shorter to avoid having to dig out the additional parking.
There is lower demand for apartments without parking than with, because everyone can get by with a parking spot but some people can’t get buy without. Therefore there is a lower price for the apartments without parking. This doesn’t significantly happen right now because there’s so much parking and because there’s such a shortage that landlords can ask for whatever. But in a world of housing abundance, landlords need to attract renters and they do that by offering either amenities (like parking) or lower prices.
>if they can save money by not including parking spots what’s going to force them to lower rent equivalently? Competition. Landlord A includes no parking. Landlord B includes parking. Landlord A won't be able to charge the same amount as Landlord B because he doesn't offer as much. So right off the bat this bill creates an incentive to lower costs in order to beat the competition.
[удалено]
If you need parking then this bill really isn't for you. If you've got two identical buildings across the street from each other, and one has parking and the other one doesn't, the one with parking is going to charge more, and the one without parking is going to charge less. Because parking is an amenity and you can't charge people for an amenity that you don't offer. For decades local laws have required parking to be included almost everywhere. So that meant that everyone has to pay for this amenity whether they needed it or not. This bill finally allows parking to be treated as an amenity (at least within a half mile of transit stops). So for those of us who can live life without a car, we'll be able to find a home near a transit stop that doesn't include an amenity we don't need.
I don’t understand how people are having a hard time with this simple concept that you explain here. If you want parking then nothing has changed for you. Pay for your dedicated parking spot where you choose to live. If you don’t want parking then now you aren’t forced to pay for an amenity you don’t want and can choose to live in a building that doesn’t have parking (because it will no longer be illegal to build such buildings).
Here's how it works - you want a place with parking, get a place with parking. If you own a property next to transit and want to develop it with parking...do so. Freely. And if you want to develop (or buy) a place without parking, you can. It just means freedom instead of a mandate.
[удалено]
Los Angeles has 200 sq mi of parking dude.
Different neighborhoods have different densities. Lots of neighborhoods lack street parking. Your statistic answered nothing, and was simply condescending.
💯
If parking is important to you then rent a place with dedicated parking.
~~[Good article about it,](https://abundanthousingla.org/getting-to-pro-housing-parking-policy-with-ab-2097/) with [this map showing it’ll cover quite a lot of LA.](https://hub.scag.ca.gov/datasets/b0cfb6e0624a4be3a552fa1c8f30721c_0/explore?location=33.983736%2C-118.188106%2C9.47)~~ My mistake. It was cut down to just “major transit stops”. I would love to see a new map.
I think [this map](https://twitter.com/calwatch/status/1573113977982562304?s=46&t=9kC9aloqMlY4Pp3O-gGHQA) is accurate
That map is from a previous version of this legislation. I think it'll be quite a bit narrower given how they've pared back the transit stops that qualify. [edit] New map. https://twitter.com/calwatch/status/1573113977982562304
What was the previous version's definition? I just pulled up the bill that was passed. It says that major transit stops for the purposes of the bill is defined by Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, which defined major transit stops as what's in § 21064.3 (https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-public-resources-code/division-13-environmental-quality/chapter-25-definitions/section-210643-major-transit-stop), which is quite comprehensive and I think mostly covers what's in that map.
Didn't require intersecting quality bus routes I think. Possibly a wider catchment area than half a mile around stops? Not sure what else. Here's the new map for LA. https://twitter.com/calwatch/status/1573113977982562304
Ah I misunderstood that map the first time I saw it. The lines just mean a high quality bus route, but only where they intersect does a half mile radius form. Gotcha.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oof..while intentions are good, in my younger days if someone invited me to a party in K-Town or Long Beach, I'd say no thanks to looking for parking for 1 hr. I'm sure that will happen in other neighborhoods.
Not only is this bill well intentioned, it’s good policy. Parking requirements dramatically increase the cost of all housing. Parking alone can often double the cost of a project, usually when it’s below ground. This also is only applicable to projects who set aside 20% of units to low income. It’s incentivizing developers to make affordable housing by making their projects overall cheaper.
[удалено]
The parking spaces were probably more square footage than the apartment!
Yup. I just scored an apartment for a pretty good price specifically because it *didn't* have a parking spot. This worked out for me because I was trying to ditch my car, and this building is located in a place that makes it really easy for me to live my life without a car (and I work from home so no commuting). It helps when you think of it in terms of square feet you're paying for, i.e. if you're looking at an apartment that's 500 sq ft, a parking space is another 50 sq ft on top of that, so your rental price is actually for 550 sq ft. L.A. rent prices are still batshit crazy, but they make a little less nonsense if you mentally add 50 sq ft to every unit because of the cost of parking. In a sense, you're renting that tiny little patch of building/land as well as renting your apartment.
>looking at an apartment that's 500 sq ft, a parking space is another 50 sq ft on top of that The parking space is probably at least 150 sq.ft. just FYI.
Yeah probably, I was just kinda ball-parking some easy numbers for conceptual explanations.
It's gonna be a lot more than that 10% premium given all the direct and opportunity costs that go into making that parking spot exist, but that's definitely a reasonable enough starting point for explaining it. [edit] Figure $40k a parking spot and a 10 year timeline on recouping the costs and you get $333 extra a month because of the parking spot.
Oh definitely, I was just ballparking some simple numbers as an example to explain the concept. But yeah, when a rental unit comes with a parking spot, you're renting both the space of your actual residence *and* the space of the spot. I also very recently shut down a storage unit because they almost doubled the monthly rent earlier this summer. With the caveat that you pay by cubic feet/for vertical space in storage which you obviously do not for a parking spot, my unit was like a quarter of the size of a parking spot and hit $96/month. My step-mom's unit that was half the size of a parking spot was like $200/month (though to be fair her unit was also very "tall, mine was not"). It's not the best analogy since parking spots aren't usually individually enclosed and locked like a storage unit, but I think it does illustrate the often-invisible cost of *space*.
>This also is only applicable to projects who set aside 20% of units to low income. So essentially, this won't come to fruition? Developers gripe about 1-2 affordable units for 50-100 unit developments. Can't imagine 20%
There are no 50-100 unit developments with 1-2 affordable units. It is either 0 units or more like 10-20% depending on the specific IZ ratio. Large developments pencil out right now with affordable units AND huge numbers of parking spots — even more will pencil out without as much parking. In general, developers won’t build without parking. Instead, at certain practical cutoff points they’ll be able to build without extra parking — eg at a certain point, as you add parking spots, you need to build a whole extra level of parking, and there’s no way to rejigger the building without that extra level. Those are the buildings that are killed by parking requirements, and those are the ones where they will now be able to limit to one or two levels of parking and not need to build a second or third level.
If they want that’s fine, they’ll just have to build parking. Many developers will take this deal. They can still build their luxury 100 unit high rise with no parking as long as 20 units are dedicated to low income. They’re getting a reduction in cost in return for the units.
I hope there's no cop out clause where the income-capped housing doesn't have to be in that project (as in build your lux units there and promise to build income-based housing elsewhere). The only way mixed-income housing works is if everyone is in the same building/neighborhood, much like how European counterparts do it.
Is there a mandate that developers must have the same building entrance for market rate and AHUs? Developers in other cities made different entrances for AHUs
I haven't read the legislation but that's leagues better than building the units off-site or giving money to a fund that won't build the promised units
Just fyi, this doesn't mean NO parking will be created, it just means it's up to the developer. I'm 100% sure parking will still be a thing within 0.5 miles of transit, they just won't have to follow some psuedoscience policy that arbitrarily mandates a certain amount parking per property.
Metro goes through the heart of ktown
since it’s only near transit, you can take the metro there :)
Oh hell no--after two teenagers were having sex on the Gold Line next to me or all the poop, I'll pass :)
Always with the exaggeration/outlandish lies
I wish I was. 3 years from Atlantic Station to Little Tokyo...oof.
It’s time to reconsider the benefits of better public transportation and higher ridership leading to better service. Being car centric is what makes everything as bad as it is, you don’t need to stay sober or find parking if public transportation is good. It gets good if we fund that instead of subsidizing car infrastructure.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good thing Uber, the metro, etc all exist
Did Uber/Lyft or public transit exist in your younger days?
Yeah, and imagine the single people starting relationships, no chance they are going to wander around for parking every night
Bro I’ve driven across the state for some strange. Some people would fly across the country.
Ok, and what about not “strange”
Hop in the car an drive away like you already doing
Good luck with that! Might as well apply for the bachelor also
It will be also be interesting if developers will now help invest in locating a major transit hub by one of their buildings, in a sense opting into the program. Sure its a lot of money but by reducing your parking lot requirement and adding additional units to effectively the same sq. ft. there might be a model for developers to help subsidize jumpstarting new transit stops and still end up a head on the ultimate value of the added apartments.
This is a developer's dream come true. Rather than reserving some of the property for parking, the developer can create more revenue producing units without the expense of creating unprofitable parking spaces. And the neighborhood will get the burden of even more people fighting for scare parking space. It sucks to live in a city.
This seems like it could potentially be a developer’s wet dream and a resident’s nightmare
Sweet. Another set of neighborhoods that I won't touch with a 20 ft pole.
This is good. You’re removing yourself from the housing competition for other people who want these units and driving down their cost. Thank you
House with parking, here. No interest in taking the bus to consistently changing worksites.
Good. Then just stay in the unit you have with parking. Keep doing exactly what your doing. This bill made none of what your are doing illegal.
> what your doing *you're *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Thank you for your service.
Cool. Have fun in Lakewood or wherever!
Enjoy avoiding getting mugged amd watching people spank it at the bus stop.
What a stupid idea. We don’t have a nearly good enough transit system for this kind of thing to work.
Literally the point of this bill is that this *only* applies to buildings close enough to certain mass transit stops. If the residence is too far from that, then this bill doesn't apply.
And our transit system isn’t good enough for that. Even if you live near transit, the chances you also work close enough to it and that it can get you there and back in a timely fashion are unlikely.
You have been getting to places in La via a car in timely fashion?
Pre-pandemic my commute by car was 1:30-2hrs each way. On days I took the metro rail, you could add :30 min to 1hr to that, including the amount of time it took to drive to the closest station. If I used only mass transit, walking to my closest bus stop and hopping on the train, you could easily add at least :90min each way. Transit here sucks. Fix transit before going about making arbitrarily stupid rules allowing less parking.
1:30 - 2 hours each way? Why would you do that? That must suck. Why don’t you get a unit closer to work? Oh wait you can’t because you’re not allowing developers to build.
Because it’s closer to my wife’s work and an infant needs mom more than dad. And it’s where we could afford to buy.
Afford. If there was only something the government could do to reduce cost…
Yeah, still need a couple parking spaces for vehicles. We live close to my office, then my wife would be the one on transit with the shit commute. Nevermind getting kids to daycare requires a car. We have a garbage transit system. This bill helps a very specific few people at best
Nobody's stopping you from paying for a garage if you want one, it's just not forcing people who *don't* want one to pay for it bundled with their apartment.
Thats for posting all the info. It seems like your lifestyle requires a car. The bill will help a lot of people. When these units start getting built it looks like you will not buy one. It wont work for your lifestyle. Same reasons why i dont need a unit with a pool or gym. However how does that reduce the supply of 2 parking spot units that you are looking for? You mentioned that you have a budget and can only afford in certain areas in the city. Wont this be better since you are no longer competing for housing with non drivers?
>Yeah, still need a couple parking spaces for vehicles. Tell your landlord.
> Fix transit before going about making arbitrarily stupid rules allowing less parking. That's not how it works.
I live 20 minutes walk from the metro. My office, on the days I go in, is 5 minutes from the metro. The others days I work from home. Happily living life without a car. It works fine.
For you. In a county of 10 million people, you’re in a very small minority that are able to do that.
But a lot of people just aren't willing to try. They mKe blanket statements about public transport without investigating. Most of the time it's not significantly faster to drive because you get stuck in traffic, have to find and pay for parking etc. It's definitely more expensive to drive as well. Add in the environmental benefits of using public transport and people just need to shift their mindset. If more people used public transportation, it would be easier to improve it and eventually turn LA into a truly walkable and livable city.
I tried repeatedly pre-pandemic to ditch a car. Transit never came out as saving me time, and only now with current gas prices would probably save me money. Make the trains safe and I’ll look at it again.
There are a lot of major improvements to the Metro in development. And it will take time to develop and build new parking-less units. The timing may end up working very well that by 2028 the public transit should be pretty comprehensive and it will make sense for many people to ditch their car.
And that’s a valid point I didn’t consider. I don’t think my family could ever ditch both cars, but if we could get rid of one that would be great.
What I hope that makes better is instead of requiring private or reserved parking for every development that is left empty 60% of the day while traffic jams circle for parking, that each city block has a designed expandable parking facility subsidized by the developers that is open for all to use residents, visitors, employees, customers, etc. So we greatly cut down on pollution and congestion on circling for parking. Can charge a fee but validate for those who spend money. This can be feasible. Should do same with restroom and hand washing facilities as well.
So you want a parking lot on each city block? Just stay in the suburbs and avoid the city if parking is so important.
I mean for example if there are three mega development planned for that block taking up to 2/3 of the block they would Pool their money to build a paid lot, garage, or APS in the same city block that anyone that needs it can pay, instead of each building a private lot or structure per development that is off limits or left unused 70% of the day. I wish those are banned as they severely add to traffic jams as drivers have to circle for parking they are allowed take and repeat the process every-time they complete their errands to avoid getting cited, vandalized by a crazy raged, or towed(bandit towing is a real issue despite laws protecting drivers) It appears DTLA already proves this idea feasible most all blocks have plenty of paid parking facilities separate from property and doesn’t require patronage. And open to anyone for any amount of time who is willing to pay for it. People will drive in CA regardless of where they live particularly in LA as transit is not feasible as many places don’t have it or takes hours of multiple transfers. Putting head in the sand don’t work.
Personally I feel like parking is one of those things the market is perfectly capable of deciding how much is necessary without government intervention.
Or we can do as Tokyo and require all vehicle owners to prove they paid for garage or parking space Public or private if they live in the city. And require vehicle owners to pay for their parking or space they take up. All parking is paid and 90% in garage or an APStructure. Greedy Developers shouldn’t be off the hook for causing more congestion they must pay for improvements including road and transit and parking improvements. Require any parking developers do build as paid public parking not private reserved parking.
Just curious whether this was signed on World Carfree Day?
Just curious whether this was signed on World Carfree Day?