I have lived in or around West Hollywood since 2012. Founded in 1984 atop the twin pillars of rent control and gay rights, the city has become a haven for the un-landed and the non-gender-conforming, both of which describe me, insofar as I own no property and fail that most basic test of manhood, heterosexuality.
If I sound a bit self-loathing, maybe it’s West Hollywood what’s done it: the city has marched in lockstep with the times, alternately self-flagellating and castigating. Witness its bizarre “land acknowledgment” rituals (about which I cannot bellyache enough). Or the city’s website, whose landing page often greets visitors with an image of Pride marchers carrying a banner demanding to know “HOW MANY OF US HAVE TO DIE FOR YOU TO GET INVOLVED.” Welcome, friends!
Yes, an irrepressible drive for justice is what powers West Hollywood, which is why I was curious to see how things would play out at a city council hearing earlier this year, at which residents fought to overturn the approval of a new affordable housing development. The seven-story building would contain 89 units, which would count toward the nearly 4,000 units California has mandated West Hollywood add to its housing supply by 2029. Half these are required to be affordable for “low” and “very low” income earners.
This is in a state that’s officially been dubbed the “capital for homelessness,” in a country that’s currently debating whether to legalize clearing encampments. (The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday.) It would seem California needs more places, not fewer, for people to live.
So it was jarring to watch some of my supposedly progressive neighbors attempt to keep poor people out of our community, citing everything from the potential for traffic to the concern that the building’s 300-square-foot “microunits” would be beneath the dignity of any potential resident. Meanwhile, low-income workers in attendance tried to explain that it would be nice to live within commuting distance of where they work.
Nearly to a person, the NIMBYs insisted they were ardent supporters of affordable housing. Just “not at the expense,” as one man advised, “of the quality of the people living in the neighborhood.”
He may have intended to say “quality of life.” But I suspect he said exactly what he meant.
If you like what you see, watch Ben’s previous dispatch from Arlington, Texas: “This Is My First Rodeo.” You can also learn more about “Ben Meets America!”
To subscribe to The Free Press, click here:
This is a terribly misleading and simplistic article. I'm an affordable housing advocate with extensive experience in LA and am familiar with this project and the non-profit developer, which is a terrific organization. My haircutter lives next door and opposed this project due to its size and other factors, not its population. Yes, there are serious NIMBY problems everywhere. Per those opposing, this project is 7 stories high where no other building is close to that height (they are 3-4) and it is next to a church that it will dwarf. Of the 89 units, 62 units (69%) are 303 square foot studios intended to house 2+ people. Underground parking consists of 66 stalls for 200+ residents (most of which are for economy sized vehicles), 18 of which are to be shared with the church, further limiting available spots. Street parking and traffic is a very challenging in the area. There are other concerns. So, it's not such a simple situation. There are serious and genuine "quality of life" issues to be taken into account in these matters. We desperately need more affordable housing for both the working poor and those with special needs but dismissing and mocking people for raising these issues is not productive or helpful.
In a market economy, devoid of government involvement and tinkering, everyone would have housing.
If there is demand for housing, it will get built unless government steps in to restrict it through its insidious hurdles and policies. Government involvement should be limited to supporting those buying or renting, not building or managing.
It runs against the market to insert low cost housing into expensive neighborhoods. Location determines price. Want better housing? Work harder, pay attention in school, etc.
I benefitted from living with two parents who prioritized education and modeled working, frugality and citizenship. They were very poor immigrants, owned a laundry and only one finished high school. I and my friends in similar situations all succeeded in life, earning doctoral and professional degrees and/or owning businesses. Our parents did not receive government supports and we worked our ways through colleges and/or received scholarships.
I used to take girlfriends to see the home and neighborhood where I lived from 3rd grade through high school. No matter the degree of success I attained in life, I was proud of living in a country that allowed one to improve his life through work and education.
Imposing housing where it does not belong is an aspect of our country taking the social welfare path instead of the work hard and study path of personal responsibility and achievement.