To the editor: Whereas Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) could also be a shiny fellow with experience on loads of different necessary points, wise metropolis planning is seemingly not one in every of them (“Gradual development is so Nineties. New housing legislation affirms drive to construct,” Sept. 17). Good metropolis planning definitely isn’t about abandoning/overriding all of the zoning and historic preservation legal guidelines which have advanced over years to develop and protect the character of our metropolis and what stays of its high quality of life, as he proposes.
Sure, we’ve got a scarcity of inexpensive housing. However many of the housing going up is something however “inexpensive.” We’d like extra considerate options to sensitively enhance density along with including the required infrastructure to help it — not merely peanut-buttering high-rises just about all through town. Wiener’s promise that folks will abruptly take to public transit is naïve and raises the specter of additional growing Los Angeles’ already nightmarish commute occasions.
SB 79 as written will not be a considerate answer. It’s a silly and harmful measure that wants to return to the drafting board.
Roger Leib, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Because the Los Angeles Instances studies, the L.A. Metropolis Council, Mayor Karen Bass and a broad coalition of neighborhood teams oppose SB 79, which might add large density throughout town — excess of wanted to satisfy state mandates. All with out requiring any inexpensive housing.
SB 79 overrides native authority; fails to require upgrades to infrastructure, open area and bushes; disregards the event potential of business corridors; and guarantees enormous disruption to thriving communities.
Supporters predict that almost all new buildings will are available nicely beneath the brand new nine-story restrict. So, we’re requested to consider that builders inclined to maximise market potential will go for one thing extra modest.
Think about your freewheeling cousin asks for a $20,000 advance towards future revenue however guarantees to make use of only a fraction of the funds. Would you go for it? I don’t suppose so.
The measure is a bonanza for builders, a civic catastrophe and an insult to our intelligence.
Shelley Wagers, Los Angeles
