I’ve mentioned previously that, unfortunately, developers can’t always be trusted to keep their word. They do sometimes run out of money, run into legal issues, have to change their plans due to unexpected problems, and the bad ones might even bribe public officials
It's not the city's job to check the financial viability of a landowner. If a developer buys a property, or partners with an existing property-owner, then it is what it is. Either they develop, sell, or get foreclosed upon. I really don't think we want the public sector intervening in that.
The most popular solution to this is a land-value tax or, less radically, a vacancy tax. Many people think it would be incredibly effective, but it would be impossible to generate wide political support for it.
Frankly, I don't even trust the city to do its existing jobs correctly (and I do not say this gladly).
I'm a former property manager. A vacancy tax is perfectly reasonable in my book - especially considering how many tax dollars go to homelessness with very little improvement to show for it. But you are correct; it could be a tough sell for many voters.
"With entitlements" is the operative phrase. If a developer is underwater, they can't be forced to build a project. They'll sell the property at a loss, and someone else will build it as entitled. If we're really concerned about vacant lots, we should speed up the approvals process so capital doesn't dry up while developers are waiting for the city.
Perhaps there should be more safeguards in place to make sure developers truly have the means to complete a project in the first place. The city is RIFE with unfinished or unbuilt projects, and a lot of them attract blight and squatters (and/or burn down).
And I hear you on the lengthy approvals process - it affects good and bad developers alike, and with so many homes lost to the fires, this is certainly no time for delays.
Between measure ULA and the rise in interest rates it is no wonder these developers are bailing. Sad but inevitable.
And it's Angelenos who suffer for developers' speculation.
It's not the city's job to check the financial viability of a landowner. If a developer buys a property, or partners with an existing property-owner, then it is what it is. Either they develop, sell, or get foreclosed upon. I really don't think we want the public sector intervening in that.
The most popular solution to this is a land-value tax or, less radically, a vacancy tax. Many people think it would be incredibly effective, but it would be impossible to generate wide political support for it.
Frankly, I don't even trust the city to do its existing jobs correctly (and I do not say this gladly).
I'm a former property manager. A vacancy tax is perfectly reasonable in my book - especially considering how many tax dollars go to homelessness with very little improvement to show for it. But you are correct; it could be a tough sell for many voters.
"With entitlements" is the operative phrase. If a developer is underwater, they can't be forced to build a project. They'll sell the property at a loss, and someone else will build it as entitled. If we're really concerned about vacant lots, we should speed up the approvals process so capital doesn't dry up while developers are waiting for the city.
Perhaps there should be more safeguards in place to make sure developers truly have the means to complete a project in the first place. The city is RIFE with unfinished or unbuilt projects, and a lot of them attract blight and squatters (and/or burn down).
And I hear you on the lengthy approvals process - it affects good and bad developers alike, and with so many homes lost to the fires, this is certainly no time for delays.