Developer Makes NIMBYs Shareholders

18 October 2006 - 7:00am

The developer of a new condominium tower in Los Angeles gave local homeowner groups an equity interest in a future residential project in exchange for project approval.

"Developers often work out monetary settlements with associations to address the concerns of local homeowners. And in exchange for fixed payouts, the groups agree not to oppose a development."

Yet new twist in this practice is the case of New York-based Related Companies, which is developing a new condominium tower on the former site of a St. Regis Hotel in Century City, an area of West Los Angeles near Beverly Hills. The developer struck a deal with nearby homeowner groups, promising them an equity interest in another of the company's developments on the drawing board, given the neighbors a percentage of the income from the other condo project.

"Real estate industry professionals say that revenue generated by the nearby Century Woods Estates development – which has yet to move beyond the conceptual stage – would likely be quite a bit larger than a simple monetary settlement. It is unclear, however, how much money that would be.

'It is a gamble, but I would hope it would be in the many millions,' said Mike Eveloff, president of the Tract 7260 Association and a member of the coalition of homeowner associations that worked out the deal."

Source: Los Angeles Business Journal, October 16, 2006

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

NIMBY Shareholders?

Let's see, if you're an elected official with the power to block projects, it's highly illegal to take a bribe.

But if you're an unpaid neighborhood association official it's OK. Hmm... I think a whole new type of real estate specialist may arise from this. "The neighborhood association extortion consultant". A lawyer, no doubt.

Bookmark and Share
But why not just require basic accessibility, such as no-step entrances and wider doorways? It seems off the mark to argue that it's inappropriate to place this kind of requirement on homebuilders.