LA could own untold billions in property — why not – Latest News
Why is LA making an attempt to raise taxes and costs on residents whereas it’s sitting on potential billions in priceless property?
That’s the query raised by Councilwoman Katy Yaroslavsky, and it’s value asking.
As The California Post reported earlier this week, the town of LA owns about 7,500 properties in city.
Sign up for the California Morning Report e-newsletter
The greatest information, opinion and tradition shaping California proper now.
Thanks for signing up!
The metropolis doesn’t even know what any of it’s value.
Some of these properties are empty parcels, or parking heaps. But all of them have worth.
Certainly, amid all of the political rhetoric about “affordability,” and the housing scarcity, it could be attention-grabbing to ask what can performed with these properties.
An aerial view reveals a palm tree-lined residential avenue in Jefferson Park, Los Angeles. Getty Images
Taxing real estate transactions — which is what Measure ULA does — clearly doesn’t work.
That tax makes “mansions” more costly. It additionally makes business property and enormous condo buildings more costly to sell, and more durable to construct.
There are clearly different methods the town can raise income — by promoting unused property.
Alternatively, the town could rent these properties, or develop them.
Yaroslavsky’s concept is to comply with New York’s instance and create an financial development company for LA.
Taxing real estate transactions — which is what Measure ULA does — clearly doesn’t work. Getty Images
That could run into its own set of issues: LA’s bureaucrats haven’t precisely earned a great popularity for business, or for management.
Look on the mess San Diego is in. It has leased some public properties for a pittance, for many years.
Meanwhile, it sunk a whole bunch of thousands and thousands of {dollars} into real estate offers that went bitter. Not precisely a great precedent.
There must be correct oversight of something LA does with its property — and that oversight must be politically unbiased, not managed by the City Council.
One can simply see an LA-run real estate company turn out to be a vehicle for political patronage and corruption. We have enough of that already.
Still — with 7,500 properties, the chances are intriguing.
City Controller Kenneth Mejia — who’s no slouch in terms of auditing unhealthy landlords — ought to audit the town’s own real estate portfolio.
The public ought to know what our metropolis owns — and who’s benefiting from it.
If nothing else, the audit can be an train in transparency.
Then we could take into account which properties to sell — and which to handle, if attainable. And how to handle them.
It’s uncommon that a good concept emerges from City Council, however Yaroslavsky deserves kudos for placing the problem on the radar.
Perhaps one resolution to income woes and housing shortages is already on the town books.
