L.A. Planning Committee Approves Controversial Affordable Housing Linkage Fee

L.A. City Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson addressing yesterday's pro Affordable Housing Linkage Fee rally. Photo by Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.
L.A. City Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson addressing yesterday's pro Affordable Housing Linkage Fee rally. Photo by Joe Linton/Streetsblog L.A.

The Los Angeles City Council Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee unanimously approved a proposed new city Affordable Housing Linkage Fee. If approved by the full council, new development would pay an estimated $100 million annually into the city’s affordable housing trust fund, resulting in an estimated 1,500 new and protected affordable units each year, according to the staff report.

Comparative linkage fees for various cities. Chart via staff report
Comparative linkage fees for various cities. Chart via staff report

The linkage fee has been championed by Mayor Eric Garcetti, and was included in the city’s adopted Comprehensive Homelessness Strategies Report. Housing linkage fees on development are already in place in numerous cities from Boston to San Francisco to West Hollywood.

Before the PLUM Committee hearing, advocates rallied on the steps of city hall. Councilmembers José Huizar, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, and Mike Bonin were joined by clergy, housing, and homeless advocates, and spoke to the importance of approving the fee to begin to turn the tide on current crises of homelessness and affordability. Signs displayed called for “affordable housing now” and “we need $150 million.”

Over the course of the nearly five-hour hearing, with more than 35 speakers on each side, public comment was split on the proposed fee.

Affordable housing advocates urged approval, telling horrific anecdotes about L.A.’s “unprecedented” housing crisis. Some blamed luxury housing developers for today’s affordability crisis, urging that they “pitch in their fair share” to solve the problem.

Business and development interests urged a “no” vote, predicting escalating housing costs, lost jobs, and an “immediate recession.” Some asserted that linkage fee costs would just be passed along to homeowners/renters living in new housing, while only a lucky few who “win the lottery” would benefit from the new affordable housing built.

Construction workers spoke on both sides of the issue.

The linkage fee issue has been divisive; a June PLUM hearing was similarly divided. While the fee could make some dent in a huge affordable housing shortfall, it represents only a partial solution, with much more still needed.

There is strong support for the fee among community-based non-profits, including L.A. Community Action Network, Alliance for Community Transit, and many that develop non-profit housing.

Some supply-side housing advocates, including Abundant Housing, have opposed a linkage fee, instead encouraging raising monies through a tax on short term rentals (such as AirBnB), a progressive real estate transfer fee, and leasing of city-owned sites. In addition to funding, Abundant Housing encourages legislative solutions to make it easier to build more homes.

PLUM Committee members present acknowledged the fraught situation.

Councilmembers Mitch Englander and Bob Blumenfield each stated that they agreed with nearly all of the points made by both sides. Councilmember Harris-Dawson, a strong supporter of the linkage fee, spoke of the lack of good choices: “It’s not a great choice to tax the activity that we want to stimulate.” In contrast, though, Harris-Dawson described keeping the status quo as “a disastrous choice,” noting that his South L.A. district has long suffered from a lack of private housing development.

Responding to council concerns expressed at the June hearing, the city’s Housing and Planning Departments crafted several potential options to create tiered linkage fees, what the city is calling “Geographic-Based Fee Variability.” The varied fees try to get away from a “one size fits all” approach, tailoring fees to respond to different development climates in different parts of the city.

Map of Linkage Fee residential market tiers based on Community Plan boundaries – via staff report
Chart of three potential fee options, including geographic tiers. Chart via staff report
Chart of three potential fee options, including geographic tiers. Chart via staff report

Councilmember Huizar proposed, and the committee ultimately approved, the staff report’s option C, which tiers fees based on Community Plan Areas. Residential fees would be from $8-$15/sqft. Commercial fees would be $3-$5/sqft.

Various committee members amended the proposal in ways that, to some extent, would water down the fees:

  • Councilmember Curren Price proposed that the “SLATE-Z” empowerment zone be exempt from fees for three years, as the empowerment zone designation is encouraging commercial development.
  • Councilmember Blumenfield proposed seven amendments, including: a $3/sqft fee on projects that result in a net loss of housing units, adding “missing middle” “moderate workforce housing” to spending plans, taxing small multi-family development in high market areas, phasing in the fee over two years, and greater reporting back on fee impacts.
  • Councilmember Englander proposed exempting all hospitals and all non-profits.

The committee voted unanimously to approve the linkage fee, with the SLATE-Z exemption, net loss of units fee, and all hospital construction exempt. The schedule approved is that the linkage fee would be phased in over the course of a year, with a half fee in place after six months, then full fees at one year.

The proposal will be heard next at the City Council’s Housing Committee, then at the full City Council. If approved by council, the City Attorney would then draft an ordinance that would need to be adopted by the council.

See additional Affordable Housing Linkage Fee coverage at KPCC and the L.A. Times.

  • Why not just have the fee for commercial development? Jobs create housing demand. If there’s going to be a residential linkage fee, put it on things like additions to single-family homes, which make houses bigger without increasing the number of homes.

    Increasing taxes on housing is a funny way of making housing cheaper. There are better policy options to pay for affordable housing.

  • chairs missing

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  • stvr

    What a terrible, terrible, no-good idea.

  • Joe Linton

    “Increasing taxes on housing is a funny way of making housing cheaper. There are better policy options to pay for affordable housing” – true – and this linkage fee does not exclude moving forward on them too. (I was kind of disappointed with Councilmember Englander – he’s pushing for a $20M tax on AirBnB, which could go to Affordable Housing Trust Fund – and at the meeting Tuesday, Englander was suggesting that the linkage fee could be lowered by $20M – instead of just adding any AirBnB tax to grow the pot bigger. Then today Englander is in the Daily News complaining about homeless encampments http://www.dailynews.com/social-affairs/20170823/las-response-to-homeless-encampments-isnt-working-councilman-says )


Livability Proponents Split on Measure JJJ, the Build Better L.A. Initiative

This November, City of Los Angeles voters will decide Measure JJJ, termed the “Build Better L.A.” initiative. Measure JJJ is designed to create new affordable housing, especially around transit, built by local workers paid living wages. Some critics assert that JJJ would likely result in unintended consequences, including potentially dampening overall construction of new housing. What Measure […]

Garcetti Motion Encourages Affordable Housing At Metro Stations

Earlier today, the Metro board of directors passed a motion [PDF] encouraging Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and affordable housing. The motion may give some indication of where the board’s newest chair, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, hopes to take the agency. Garcetti has been a vocal proponent of siting affordable housing along transit lines. Garcetti authored the motion […]

Transit-Oriented Development and Communities of Color: A Field Report

(This article first appeared in Progressive Planner, the official magazine of the Planner’s Network and is reprinted with the author’s permission.  Gen Fujioka is the senior policy advocate with the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development. This article was written in collaboration with the Urban Communities of Color Caucus which seeks to advance […]

Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council Wants More Barriers to High Density Developments

The Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council approved a motion to craft a policy geared towards limiting high-density development projects. The Planning and Land Use Committee’s recommended motion aims to preserve the “existing character of the community,” by demanding traffic data, allotting parking space for automobiles and limiting high density developments. “Boyle Heights of 20-30 years ago was mostly […]