Dick Platkin
December 19 2024
https://www.citywatchla.com/planning-watch-la/30052-why-has-the-price-of-housing-increased-faster-than-incomes

PLANNING WATCH – Most Angelenos know that the cost of housing has risen much faster than family incomes in recent decades. The above chart reveals that in LA County the cost of housing has soared since 1970 while median family income has barely moved. The result is that housing in Los Angeles – like most of the US – is increasingly unaffordable. This is why so many people double-up, become homeless, or move to cheaper housing markets. They have been priced out of market housing, and the option of public housing barely exists.

This is a perfect example of social pathology, while the housing non-profits focus on such personal pathologies as mental illness and drugs. In fact, this is why elected officials and the corporate media seldom mention the working unhoused. They are the vast majority of the homeless, but keep a low-profile, often living in their cars.

There are many reasons why homelessness has increased since 1970, and an October 2024 report from the Washington, DC-based Institute for Policy Studies focuses on the role of real estate investors. They drive up the cost of housing, and this results in rising homelessness.

“The over-focus on expanding housing supply through for-profit development misses a key contributor to the housing crisis: the concentration of wealth and power. The challenges of the U.S. housing crisis go beyond supply or fixing local land use regulations. The billionaire class and billionaire-backed private equity investors have become a driving force in the U.S. housing crisis.”

This report is a must read for anyone looking for a carefully researched analysis of the housing crisis, especially in California, where homelessness and overcrowding continue to rise, despite billions in public funds devoted to housing issues.

“The failure of lawmakers to address the treatment of housing as a speculative asset and the unregulated activity of the billionaire class, for-profit investors, and private equity firms has artificially driven up property prices. The gap between housing prices and the salary needed to . . . afford them continues to expand, to the point where 653,000 people are currently unable to meet those expenses and are unhoused.”

In addition to analyzing the current housing crisis, this report inventories potential programs that should be prioritized:
• • Community Land Trusts. In Los Angeles the Beverly-Vermont Community Land Trust is an excellent example.
• • Just Cause Evictions. In Los Angeles the City Council has adopted a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance.
• • Right to Organize and Right to Counsel. Los Angeles Country recently adopted an ordinance ensuring legal representation to tenants facing eviction.
• • Rent Control. Los Angeles has a Rent Stabilization Ordinance, a watered-down version of rent control. This ordinance applies to apartments built before 1979, and it allows reversion to market rate rents when tenants leave.
• • Tax Luxury and High Value Real Estate Transfers. Measure ULA, passed by Los Angeles voters in 2022, levies a 4% charge on property sales above $5 million and a 5.5% charge on sales above $10 million.
• • Empty homes and vacancy tax. Investors keep millions of Never been Occupied housing units vacant, assuming that property appreciation allows them to profitably sell them. I cannot identify any local legislation restricting corporate ownership of housing. Vancouver, BC, however, adopted a tax on vacant houses.
• • Housing First. This policy, including the California version, prioritizes rapid rehousing.
• • Restriction Ownership of Single-Family Homes. Like vacancy taxes, I have not found any state laws or local ordinances restricting corporate ownership of housing.
• • Expand Public Housing. The elimination of public began in 1973 under the Nixon administration, and it has never ended.

Unmentioned in this report, but criticaly important to solve the housing crisis, is raising wage levels. Without these increases, it is impossible to bridge the gap between rapidly rising housing costs and stagnant incomes.

The Institute for Policy Studies report explains the current housing crisis, including homelessness, in stark detail, identifying the role of corporate landlords in raising housing costs much faster than incomes. It is a must read, despite the report’s failure to discuss raising employee compensation.

(Dick Platkin is a retired LA city planner, who reports on local planning issues. He is a board member of United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (UN4LA). Previous columns are available at the CityWatchLA archives. Please reply to rhplatkin@gmail.com.)

Several years ago Gov. Newsom claimed California needed 3.5 million new homes. The Embarcadero Institute showed the number was more like 1.5M and Newsom admitted his number was “aspirational”. A government census showed there are 1.6M ‘Ghost Houses” in California. No, not Winchester Mansions, but unoccupied residential properties, owned by real estate trusts (REITs), insurance companies, and off-shore investors who want the profit but don’t want to bother renting or managing the property.

Barcelona, Spain and Catalonia had a similar problem years ago and they passed a law. “Any residential property which is unoccupied for two years or more will be taken by the government by eminent domain AT 50% OF MARKET VALUE and used for AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

Drastic! And it would certainly precipitate numerous law suits by the owners here. A better way would be a law which says: “Any residential property which is unoccupied for one year will be taken by the LOCAL government, or an agency appointed by it, and used for affordable housing. At such time as the owner wishes to occupy, rent or sell the property, the government will return it to them IN THE CONDITION IN WHICH IT WAS RECEIVED, AND while the government is using the property, the owner WILL NOT PAY ANY PROPERTY TAX.” A carrot with the stick.

BOOM! 1.6 Million available residential properties. The local government would be acting like an Air B&B. Of course, the developers and contractors and labor unions who support the Democratic Party in Sacramento wouldn’t like that because they wouldn’t make any profit that way. Just like London Breed refused to allow prefab houses from Oakland to be used in San Francisco because the labor unions objected.

But now we live in a different world! With the major fires in LA and the destruction of so many homes, we will need all those developers, contractors and union workers to rebuild the housing that was destroyed. In 2022 California only added 123,000 homes, the highest number in 15 years. Not because of zoning laws, but because of a limited supply of labor and materials. Now with the need for workers to rebuild LA (and the High Speed Rail to Nowhere) who will build the new homes they say we need? And with the new tariffs on Canada, how much with the lumber cost? Sacramento needs to rethink its priorities.

Thank you for writing this – I agree that big corporate ownership of housing, coupled with our inequality crisis, has mainly caused all this suffering.

The apparent total(?) capture of the California Democratic Party by neoliberalism and Big Real Estate is why I can no longer vote for any* of them. (I stay in the DP to vote for Biden though, and whichever other national ones I can stomach.)

The tiny part of the ULA funds that will go towards prevention constitutes an actual advance. I think we don’t talk about this enough. It’s actually exciting.

It remains to be seen though how much of that whole scene is just yimby in disguise. (Some days, I try not to be reflexively pessimistic!)

*There may be one left, somewhere. I won’t vote for a defunder (distinct from a reformer, which is okay), and I won’t vote for a yimby. There could, in theory, be a CDP official around somewhere, who isn’t in either group. But I don’t know who it is yet, if there is one.