In an interview in The Planning Report, homebuilders’ lobby representative Ray Pearl outlines an alternative proposal that the HBAs have presented to the LA City Council as an alternative to pending inclusionary zoning legislation. (California state law encourages inclusionary zoning.) It’s a curious proposal, to be sure, but very well targeted:

Many TPR interviewees have suggested that there�s an absence of actual planning going on in Southern California and in Los Angeles�mediation and negotiation most definitely, but very little planning. Our inner city and inner suburban neighborhoods are being asked to include new schools, and new parks, and new libraries, and more child-care, etc. How, given development pressures, do we best integrate housing into the fabric of a neighborhood without proper planning, which seems today to be under-funded and without strong strong support from city leadership?

Los Angeles certainly needs a proactive planning process that focuses on creating better and livable communities with all of those components that you mentioned. Because the Fair Share Program is so comprehensive in nature, our hope is that this will spur the very planning you�re talking about. In sitting down and choosing where we want housing, we�re going to involve council offices, we�re going to involve the Planning Department, and most importantly, we want to involve neighborhoods.

The city of Los Angeles is virtually built-out. The only way you�re going to provide more housing is for the city to begin to grow up. But no development should be shoved down somebody�s throat. If we can all work together and begin to plan proactively now, we will put the city in a position of being proud of this process. How we address the housing crisis today will say a lot about who we are tomorrow.

In this sense, the builders could succeed in dividing affordable housing advocates (who will be very difficult to wrest away from inclusionary proposals) from planning advocates. Sure, good planning is in very short supply everywhere — very few cities do much pro-active planning of any sort. And “fair share” is a great idea at the citywide level, especially in highly economically segregated cities like LA.

However, what’s suspicious about the proposal is that there’s no reason why the same ideas couldn’t apply citywide: citywide incentives (and requirements) for affordable housing construction, more TIF investment in neighborhoods (heck, more investment, period), better planning for infill zones. As some have pointed out, inclusionary zoning, when properly done, does not discourage building in low-income, lower-price parts of town — those units are often priced affordably anyways.

Plus, such a plan would eliminate the level playing field that citywide inclusionary zoning provides. Indeed, it sounds somewhat like the existing Chicago system, where developers negotiate with City Hall and the aldermen for TIF subsidies and toss back a few inclusionary units in exchange.

An outline of the plan after the jump:

Council members Garcetti and Reyes proposed a draconian and counter-productive mandatory inclusionary zoning ordinance. As part of the process, they gave the business community 90 days to come up with an alternative. That ninety-day period culminated on August 10th with our proposed solution, the Housing-For-All: Fair Share Program.

Our plan would establish a five-year pilot program under which the city would set a goal of producing 100,000 units. One of the key components is the distribution of housing throughout the city. We�ve heard criticism that some districts welcome housing, and others don�t. Some have too much affordable housing, some have none. This plan not only sets the goal, but spreads housing evenly among all 15 council districts…

We go further by creating overlay zones within each district called Housing Incentive Zones. The city Planning Department, City Council offices, neighborhood councils and community organizations would work together to decide where in their district they want housing to be built. Once the Council approves these Housing Incentive Zones, a developer receives a number of by-right incentives allowing them to increase what they are able to build. As a trade off for those by-right incentives, the developer would then provide a mandated percentage of affordable housing…

Lastly, one of the key components is neighborhood incentives. As part of our proposal, the city�s portion of the increase in property tax increment from any new housing would be returned to each councilmember to spend within their district to improve the communities that are willing to accept this new housing. These funds could be used on updating community centers, enhancing libraries, providing new open space, fixing potholes�whatever the community desired.

Our goal is truly to create a comprehensive housing policy that produces housing for everyone.