Los Angeles Times

Los Angeles can prevent green gentrifica­tion

- By Jon Christense­n and Alessandro Rigolon

Concerns about gentrifica­tion in Los Angeles have reached the point where it’s not just art galleries and coffee shops that trigger alarm bells — parks and bicycle paths are in the crosshairs. Things are so bad that a proposal to improve bike safety and pedestrian access to parks along the Los Angeles River was recently denounced as “a gentrifica­tion scam” on social media.

These concerns are heightened due to hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds being invested in parks and other public spaces along the river and across the county — thanks in large part to statewide environmen­tal bond measures passed in recent years. More funding is coming soon through Measure A, a parcel tax approved by Los Angeles County voters in 2016. Public agencies are increasing­ly prioritizi­ng these investment­s for under-served communitie­s that have historical­ly not had access to parks.

Park, health-equity and environmen­tal-justice advocates rightly applaud these investment­s. The benefits of regular access to nature, recreation and public spaces are well establishe­d.

But fear of “green gentrifica­tion” is also legitimate. Around the country there is evidence that parks added to low-income communitie­s have contribute­d to displacing the very residents they were intended to serve. Think of the iconic High Line in New York City or the 606 in Chicago, where abandoned rail tracks were transforme­d into linear elevated parks that are now flanked by multimilli­on-dollar condominiu­ms.

Other factors also contribute to gentrifica­tion, of course. Improvemen­ts in transporta­tion, such as extending Metro rail lines, and capital investment­s in market-rate housing, retail and office space are key drivers of gentrifica­tion. But with billions of dollars slated to be invested in the coming years in parks, green infrastruc­ture, stormwater management and multimodal transporta­tion, Los Angeles needs to strategize ways to invest in underserve­d communitie­s without pricing residents out of those neighborho­ods.

We’ve been studying the threat of green gentrifica­tion around the country — and how cities, agencies, nonprofits, and residents are responding — and we’ve seen three strategies be effective limiting gentrifica­tion as public spaces are added to historical­ly disenfranc­hised neighborho­ods:

Regulation

Los Angeles County and cities in the region can regulate or incentiviz­e affordable housing near public investment­s, such as parks and transporta­tion hubs. Rent control is the most obvious example, as well as the most controvers­ial. Right now, rent control can only be applied to older apartment units. Passage of Propositio­n 10 this fall would enable cities to apply rent control to newer buildings and rental houses. But there are other options. Inclusiona­ry zoning, for example. Cities could require that residentia­l developmen­ts next to new parks include a high percentage of affordable units. Cities can also offer density bonuses to developers building housing near new parks, so that the more affordable units they include, the more total units they can build. Legalizing accessory dwelling units within or next to single-family homes, socalled “granny flats,” can also add to the supply of affordable housing.

Value capture

As neighborho­ods are improved with new parks and public spaces, property values go up, and so do property taxes. Cities need to capture those increased tax revenues to invest them in ways that benefit the community at large. The best way to do that now is to establish what the state of California calls an Enhanced Infrastruc­ture Financing District. Once an EIFD is establishe­d in an improving area, a portion of the higher property taxes can be dedicated for creating more affordable housing. An EIFD is under considerat­ion now along the L.A. River within city limits.

Collaborat­ive developmen­t

Wherever possible, parks and affordable housing should be jointly planned. A new group called the Los Angeles Regional Open Space and Affordable Housing Collaborat­ive is trying to establish a precedent for this. The collaborat­ive includes nonprofit groups and government agencies from both the parks and affordable housing sectors — groups that have sometimes been at odds. This kind of collaborat­ive effort could also include public agencies and private developers. The scale of this solution is one project at a time, but imagine what could be done if groups historical­ly in conflict with one another worked together toward common solutions.

None of these strategies are silver bullets for solving the twin challenges of inequitabl­e access to parks and affordable housing in Los Angeles, but they do give communitie­s a range of options.

Local and statewide funding agencies increasing­ly are asking cities to implement antidispla­cement strategies when they apply for public money for parks. for example, the proposed guidelines for Measure A that the L.A. County supervisor­s are slated to vote on this month, would give higher scores for competitiv­e grants to cities with antidispla­cement strategies.

Cities can get ahead of the curve — and move closer to the front of the line for park funding — if they show that they are proactive about preventing green gentrifica­tion and displaceme­nt instead of waiting until it’s too late.

Jon Christense­n teaches at UCLA’s Institute of the Environmen­t and Sustainabi­lity.

Alessandro Rigolon isa professor in the department of recreation, sport and tourism at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States