Measure S gives city leaders a moderately satisfying smack across the face. As satisfying as that may be, Measure S is remarkably bad planning and development policy at the expense of the vast majority of Angelinos.
Many households spend more than they can afford on housing and transportation, but the latest International Housing Affordability Survey is wrong to recommend sprawl as the best solution. Real solutions must reduce both housing and transport costs.
The dust from the November election is far from settled, but Los Angeles is already headed back to the ballot box in March. The big ticket item for planning in the city: Measure S, also known as the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative.
Rideshares like Uber and Lyft have been under attack for their brash approach to local regulations and laissez-faire pricing schemes, but they've also pushed traditional taxis to dramatically improve their service in a very short span of time.
The 2014 National Realtor's Survey asked consumers for preferences in housing and neighborhood types. Although preferences trended toward the suburban, the number of people who want to live in urban areas is under-supplied by multi-family housing.
Insurance coverage hasn’t kept up with the cost of medical care and property damage caused by crashes. And whether we drive or not, when someone can’t pay for the damage they’ve done, we all have to pick up the tab.
If we really want more people to use transit, and we think it's a worthwhile goal to subsidize people's commutes, why go through all the trouble of tax deductions and employer control? Why not just subsidize transit passes directly?
While there's no denying the fact that the number of children in many American cities has declined, it's untrue that urban life is incompatible with raising a family, or that families in cities are being replaced by singles and childless couples.