Mac, Henry, Taylor
Problem 1: LA County Housing Crisis
A planning problem facing Los Angeles county is a shortage of low income housing. Over the last 18 years, median rents increased by 32% while median renter incomes decreased 3%. Currently, residents spend approximately 47% of their monthly income on housing. This percentage is higher than in any other major city in the United States. The lack of affordable housing is fueling an increase in homelessness. There was a 16% increase in the number of people who became homeless for the first time from 2017 – 2018. Many areas like Skid Row can be found throughout the county. Tents, shopping carts, bicycles, and mattresses line city streets. The proliferation of tents impedes the ability of police officers to identify drug dealers and human traffickers. There are currently about 60,000 homeless people and many more low income wage earners struggling to maintain their current housing. Homeless shelters are operating beyond capacity. Paying utility bills and buying food are sacrificed to pay rent. Residents are dismayed by the urban blight while the homeless and working poor are frustrated by an inability to secure stable housing. The county estimates that over 516,000 affordable housing units need to be added just to meet the current demand of low income renters.
Articles:
- https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/politics/los-angeles-homeless-crisis/index.html
- https://la.curbed.com/2019/5/21/18634232/los-angeles-affordable-housing-shortage-how-much-need
- https://everyoneinla.org/4-reasons-need-affordable-housing-la-now/
Advocate approach:
The advocacy planning style could be used to tackle the affordable housing shortage in Los Angeles. Strategies utilized by this style could include the use of rent control. New builds and/or existing structures should have rent ceilings that do not exceed 30% of the monthly earnings made by a full time minimum wage employee. Similarly, the county could reallocate funds currently being spent on addressing disorder problems to subsidize rentals for low income families. This would be more affordable than new builds. Refurbished shipping containers and new 3D printed houses could be used to provide new housing opportunities. Both are cheaper than new builds and can be implemented in a more timely manner. There are pros and cons to the advocacy planning approach. This approach would greatly improve the quality of life for homeless and low income residents. It would promote self esteem and enable these residents to feel valued. Having a stable home would facilitate securing and maintaining employment. Crime and aggressive panhandling would likely diminish along with other signs of disorder in downtown and tourist areas. Tax dollars dedicated to cleaning up these areas would be saved. This approach to the housing crisis, however, could be hard to implement if powerful community stakeholders were opposed to the idea. Property owners who would forgo income from rent increases may oppose these planning strategies. Residents in areas where new affordable housing would be added could be another source of opposition. Middle income residents may not want shipping containers or 3D homes in their neighborhoods for fear it would diminish property values. In the end, while directly benefiting the underprivileged renters and homeless, this planning style will improve the physical environment of the city in a fiscally responsible manner.
Consensus builder approach:
There are also pros and cons to a consensus builder approach. A consensus builder would look at the ideas of businesses, the government, and low income community members when proposing a solution for the housing crisis in Los Angeles. The businesses, for instance, have a vested interest in the downtown area. They want it to be appealing to tourists and free of signs of disorder. The government has a similar interest due to taxes brought in from tourists frequenting local businesses, hotels, and restaurants. They want the city of Los Angeles to have a positive reputation in attempts to draw new businesses to start up or relocate. Low income community members want affordable housing. One consensus builder approach may be to build affordable housing near public transportation hubs. With affordable housing and access to transportation, low income individuals can afford to take the lower paying jobs that often go unfilled but play an important role in the overall functioning of the area. This would also be a benefit for business owners, as it fills their need for employees. Another idea is to have inclusionary zoned areas. A predetermined percent of new builds in non low income areas would be dedicated to affordable housing. In exchange for accommodating multi-unit low income housing, single family homes receive a property tax reduction. In addition, LA voters have already approved $1.2 billion in funding for the development of affordable housing, which shows community support. The state’s No Place Like Home program also has more funding available which will reduce the amount needed by taxpayers and the state. One pro to the consensus builder approach is that all sides benefit in some way. Taking all sides into account promotes a true sense of community because different groups are working together toward a common goal. These ideas could also reduce the cycle of poverty that homeless and low income children are likely to succumb to. A disadvantage of this approach is that the government, taxpayers, and businesses will bear the majority of the cost. Also, there is no way to ensure that all parties will benefit equally. Some groups will ultimately benefit more than others. It may also be difficult to get the parties involved to agree on specific plans which could make the process long and laborious.
Problem 2: Hong Kong Housing Crisis
Articles
https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-hong-kong-housing-island-20190403-story.html
Similarly, Hong Kong is facing a major housing crisis. Housing in Hong Kong is the most expensive in the world, with the cost increasing 400% since 2003. Average rent, which can be over $2,000 a month, is growing much faster than income, which means the problem is only getting worse. Furthermore, many properties require high deposits or fees that make them impossible to rent for low income renters, or renters who could afford the monthly rent but not the upfront cost. Roughly 45% of the country lives in subsidized public housing, but the demand is much greater than the supply. Many young professionals view owning a home as an unrealistic goal, and have resigned themselves to sharing cramped rooms or living in “coffin homes” that are barely big enough to accommodate one. This partially stems from the high density of Hong Kong, which is one of the most dense areas of the world. Despite this density, the majority of the territory is actually undeveloped. The government has designated large swaths of the country as protected parks or agricultural assets, rejecting development and constraining the population’s expansion.
Entrepreneurial Approach
One possible approach is entrepreneurial based development of housing. Many in Hong Kong feel that the government does not listen to the concerns of the people, so it may be beneficial to switch to a private solution. Under this plan, government restrictions on land use would be lifted, allowing entrepreneurs to develop the land as they see fit. In the event that the government does not want to give up all of their control, they could also relax restrictions and allow entrepreneurs to bid for projects or compete for funding that would go towards improving housing conditions. This approach has many potential benefits. The newly competitive market would create competition and help drive down prices as companies compete for business. The competition would also encourage innovative solutions, especially if the government is willing to fund them, and offer alternatives to citizens. Additionally, if restrictions on land use were relaxed, private companies could more efficiently allocate the land and expanding the livable area of the territory. While these benefits are promising, there are some strong negatives to consider. It is very possible that entrepreneurs could collude, or that a monopoly or oligopoly will develop in the housing market. This could exacerbate the problem further, leading to even higher prices and less supply, as oligopolies inefficiently produce resources. With the high number of Hong Kongers living in publicly subsidized housing, it is possible that the economy can not actually support profit driven housing. Without government aid, many citizens would be unable to afford any housing at all, which is a step in the wrong direction. Finally, a large portion of the restricted land is protected to preserve the quality of water on the island. A purely entrepreneurial approach where these restrictions are relaxed or erased could have serious environmental consequences. For this reason, many environmental activists oppose this solution.
Neutral Public Servant Approach
In stark contrast to the entrepreneurial approach, the planners could also act as neutral public servants. A neutral public servant uses their expertise to help the community enact their plan, but does not offer their opinions or tell the community what they should do. This could be especially powerful in Hong Kong in light of recent protests against the government. Hearing from those who are directly impacted and figuring out how to best serve them could be a powerful tool to alleviate tensions. There is a fair case that those living through the crisis might have the best ideas for how to fix it. That said, the approach is potentially problematic. With such a complex problem, it is possible that there will not be a clear public consensus for how to proceed. With many diverse opinions, the planner may have to make decisions that appear to be opinionated. With the charges of a corrupt or unresponsive government, any appearance that the neutral public servant is not truly neutral could be destructive to the public sentiment. Furthermore, it is possible that the public’s plan will not be comprehensive or effective long term. The planner can help advise against this, but ultimately if the public wants a short term solution the planner must help them enact it. This could make other styles, like consensus builder, more effective, as they add in more diverse perspectives and create more compromise.