How to pay for parks in L.A.

Lhousing and less expensive housing. But it also needs more parks and open space to balance the increased density and accommodate the influx of residents. To pay for those parks, the Los Angeles City Council is considering levying higher fees on new condo and apartment projects. But that would make it more costly to build housing, which could reduce the number of new homes and raise the prices.

This is no easy choice for city leaders, who should be laser-focused on fixing the city’s affordable-housing crisis. Yet the fees must be increased. This is how Los Angeles, and more broadly, California, builds infrastructure and amenities: New development foots the bill.

Under state law, cities can require that developers of houses or condominiums set aside parkland in their projects or pay a socalled Quimby fee. The idea is that development increases the demand on existing parks, and the fees can help cities acquire recreational space to serve the added residents. Los Angeles has expanded the park fee to apply to rental apartment projects that require a zoning change to be built.

But the city’s fees, which currently range from $2,800 to $8,000 per unit, typically haven’t generated enough money to buy land or build parks. The money has to be spent near the development — within a half a mile to two miles of the new homes — and it can be difficult to find suitable space, especially in built-out areas such as downtown and Hollywood. The city has been criticized in the past for sitting on Quimby funds. Also, apartment projects that do not require a zoning change have been exempt, which means many communities are adding residents without raising the money to add recreational space.

The proposal before the City Council would ensure that all new residential development pays for parks, raising fees eventually to $10,000 per single family home and condo and $5,000 per unit on all new apartments. The fees would be higher than in Burbank and Long Beach, lower than in Pasadena and Glendale. But they may not be enough; according to one study, the city would have to charge $18,000 per unit just to maintain the current ratio of 4.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

The rules would also be changed to encourage developers to reduce their fees by setting aside space in their projects, which could be the easiest and fastest way to build more parks. The rules would also let the city spend the fees within a larger area, which would make it easier to find and buy land. If new residents are ultimately going to pay more in park fees, they ought to know the city can spend the money efficiently.

Parks make great communities. And that’s what developers here should be building —– not just housing, but communities.