Developer’s new home plans stir up Echo Park gentrification talk

Developer wants to develop this duplex to build five new townhomes

Developer wants to develop this duplex to build five new townhomes

Echo Park News Sponsor
Masa of Echo Park

ECHO PARK — After the small, peach-colored duplex at 1936 Preston Avenue went up for sale last summer for $599,000, a buyer eventually emerged who paid $170,000 over the asking price. But the new owners had no intention of moving into the 1920s property. Instead,  4site Holdings, a Silver Lake-based developer, wants to demolish that duplex and building five townhomes on the same lot. Building the project, however, means that the tenants  Jose and Ana Sanchez  will have to to find another place to live after calling Preston Street home for more than 30 years, reports L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez.

4site, which plans to sell the new homes for $800,000, has offered relocation costs but the Sanchez family is challenging the offer. Lopez writes:

It’s not just their home that they’re losing, Rocio Sanchez said. Like a lot of other longtime residents, many of them Latino, they’re effectively being squeezed out of Echo Park, where apartments smaller than the home they live in are going for twice what they pay, and corner bodegas give way to $5 coffee shops.

Todd Wexman, chief principal of 4site, which is building a 49-unit apartment building on Temple Street, told The Times that the property is legally a single-family dwelling, which means he’s not required to pay relocation fees to the tenants.

His firm is seeking city permission to carve up the approximately 7,500-square-foot lot into five separate parcels under the small-lot development ordinance. In December, a permit was pulled to demolish the duplex but has not yet been granted, according to the Building & Safety Department website.

The Sanchez family, which has retained an attorney, says the most affordable, comparable home they could find was in Boyle Heights, where the landlord was asking $1,500-a-month – substantially higher than the $942-a-month they now pay on Preston.


  1. Hopefully others will learn from the Sanchez’s situation.

    There are pros/cons to renting and owning. There are risks associated with both.

    Renters of any race can get priced out, it’s not just a brown thing. I got priced out of a beach community I loved. I’m not brown.

    If your a minimum wage worker, it’s unlikely that you’ll be financially secure. You have choices: a) move to a cheaper place b) increase your income earning potential via education or trade-skills development c) or keep your moving boxes handy.

    The whining and crying about this has gotten so out of hand, it’s almost achieved comical status.

    • Your over simplification of the issues at hand have achieved comical status. If over simplification is the goal, then Greed disguised as capitalism is why AMERICANS are so ridiculously entitled.

      • ….going to write a nonsensical comment and use the word Greed capitalized…it’s going to really put it to all those who own their homes and sell/buy at market rates…. what GREED!

      • are you that thick by choice? There is an over supply of cheap and unskilled labor in CA(open border); plus, there is a demand for housing by illegals and their children.

    • This is an outrage. These people have paid their fare share for this home. The greed of these invaders is unthinkable!

      • They haven’t paid anything for the home. They paid rent… below market rate rent.

        • There is a large portion of the population for which there exists no place in this economy and an even larger portion which is a marginal precariat. Right libertarian economists and socialists would agree that this economy does not efficiently allocate resources, and thus requires fixing.

          Think about that for a second.

          Right-libertarian economists and socialists alike have in common that they disagree with you.

          • The James who wrote the above comment isn’t the same James who often leaves comments on this blog (yours truly).

      • no, they didn’t. they paid rent to the owner. there is a rather substantial and important difference between the two.

      • greed? Did you take classes at some JC? Broken Spears is upset…

    • “I got priced out of a beach community I loved. I’m not brown”. At what point did this become a “brown” thing? Also, we’re not talking about an exclusive beachside community but rather a working-class residential neighborhood threatened by greedy developers who are intentionally displacing them in favor of wealthier newcomers. Nothing less. That isn’t “community”. It’s opportunistic greed run amok with little to no regard for the people primarily responsible for this area’s appeal and character, i.e., STOP your constant pissin and moanin over regular people questioning whether this is the future WE want for OUR community and NOT your community of Pasadena,

        • VIVA LA RAZA!

          • LOL!!!!!!!

          • Property of Echo Park

            @Proper Dos – It becomes a “brown” thing when you post “VIVA LA RAZA”.

          • There is a stalking impostor using my handle in an effort to discredit opposing povs. What can I say(?), other than to advise readers to ignore the obviously fake posts. I’m neither a stereotype or race-baiter. That role has been assumed by the juvenile pro-gentrifying crowd who would rather make this a race or “brown” thing than a pro-community concern. Otherwise, one can’t argue on behalf of a demographic that has yet to establish itself over the interests of the established community if residents. I’m looking forward to this issue coming to a head during the next council 13 election. Can’t blame everything as Garcetti’s legacy. O’Farrell will have to present balanced and inclusive solutions that don’t simply and passively favor “unavoidable change”, i.e., greed and profit.

          • you’re not a “race-baiter”?
            holy cow. Time for some introspection, fella.

          • I’m neither a stereotype or race-baiter. That role has been assumed by the juvenile pro-gentrifying crowd who would rather make this a race or “brown” thing than a pro-community concern (see Exhibit A immediately above this post).

          • @guy named after a terrible 90s hip-hop band (PD)

            “That role has been assumed by the juvenile pro-gentrifying crowd who would rather make this a race or “brown” thing than a pro-community concern”

            Then just what kind of “privilege” were the NELA Alliance morons telling us all to check at their protest?

            You’re like the Eastsider’s very own Archie Bunker.

          • I revel in the fact that the nasty irony of your last post completely escapes you (lol). Classic!

          • “I revel in the fact that the nasty irony of your last post completely escapes you (lol). Classic!”

            It was mean’t to be ironic…..

            You know what’s nasty? Two girls getting shot by gangbangers in my neighborhood and the likes of you trying to paint gangsters in a positive light.

            Revel in your hatred. It’s all you know.

      • Complaining about it will do nothing. That’s the problem with the anti-gentrification dialogue in LA, it’s all whining no ideas. Development is a business like any other, of course they are motivated by greed – that’s capitalism in a nutshell. Is your job any different? I highly doubt it.

        If you want to stop housing prices from ballooning in desirable neighborhood near downtown, then we need to build a lot more of it. Supply and demand. Of course lots of people in LA that want to stop rent spikes, also insist on rigid zoning codes that actually make the situation much worse (suburban parking requirements, antiquated environmental restrictions, red tape galore.)

        • You can’t build enough to keep up with demand in a global city who’s time has come. See Manhattan or SF.

          The only response is to fight for your neighbors, by their side, tooth-and-nail, against outside interests who just wan to bulldoze and cash-in.

          • The “James” who wrote the above comment isn’t the same James (yours truly) who often writes comments on this blog. For the record, I haven’t commented on this article, except to make sure that folks know that apparently there is more than one person who uses the handle “James” here. (My posts are nearly 100% error-free, unlike the post above this one.)

          • LA is exponentially bigger than SF or NYC… if you ask me, comparing those cities to ours is about as apples and oranges as it gets.

            Central LA has surface parking lots, strip malls and dingbat apartments on tap… It’ll take 100 years to fill the basin with more conventional urban development like SF or NYC.

      • when did it become a brown thing?

        in the article, Steve Lopez writes: ” Like a lot of other longtime residents, many of them Latino, they’re effectively being squeezed out”

        In 9 of 10 other articles written about gentrification in LA, it’s about working class Latinos being priced out.

        My point is that anyone can fall victim to rising prices.

        • Theoretically you are right, however Latinos make up the bottom of barrel in terms of overall wealth so developers target these demographics.

        • Alongside hispanics at the bottom of the economic barrel are Blacks but nobody seems eager to gentrify the South L.A. neighborhoods that are closer to downtown L.A. and the beach. Make of that what you will but what I know is that gentrification doesn’t begin until a neighborhood is deemed safe enough to invest in. 15 years ago, it was Venice and Mar Vista. At this point and time, it’s NELA. and I agree that “anyone can fall victim to rising prices”, which is why this is a class issue more than anything else, e.g., I’m comfortably established in NELA with no threat of eviction or displacement and STILL resent the emergence of denser housing, overpiced goods and services, and increased traffic congestion. NELA has always been a place to live not the scene to posture and profit while blatantly turning noses up at the plight of its longtime residents. Ya Basta!

          • well, at least we’re on the same side with regards to increased housing density and traffic congestion. Pasadena’s many years further down that rat hole than NELA, and I really hope that NELA doesn’t cave in the way Pasadena did. Actually, I opt to patronize places in Eagle Rock and Highland Park over Pasadena quite often, *in part*, because it has alot less traffic and easier parking.

          • “Actually, I opt to patronize places in Eagle Rock and Highland Park over Pasadena quite often, *in part*, because it has alot less traffic and easier parking” See what I’ve ALWAYS meant? Enjoy it while you can but I am resisting and won’t cave in. I’m not going anywhere and we will have to be dealt with not away with.

          • Hispanics seem to have been eagerly gentrifying south LA for over a decade in my real estate experience. Yet nobody is pointing the finger at them and calling them invaders. See the double standard, Poopy?

          • It is impossible for Hispanics to “gentrify” blacks out of South Central. That’s more a matter of self segregation but that’s a totally different issue.

          • @GAROL: So true!

          • “Hispanics seem to have been eagerly gentrifying south LA for over a decade in my real estate experience. Yet nobody is pointing the finger at them and calling them invaders”. You must’ve missed the entire 80s building-up to the L.A. riots of ’92(?). Also, there have ALWAYS been Mexicans in South and South Central L.A. Those neighborhoods didn’t become “historically Black” until the 60s and reverted back to a hispanic majority by the 90s. Also, buying homes, establishing businesses, and providing AFFORDABLE goods and services is inclusive of all poor and working-class residents.

            Since you crybabies can’t clean up after yourselves, I’ll continue to scoop up and discard your ignorant poop for you.

          • Silly Broken Spears,

            Our unchecked borders in part created this mess; uneducated, unskilled invading America and having little cholos. Now the cholos can’t afford to buy because their parents never valued an education. Blame it on the greedy investors.

      • Broken Spears,

        Real estate is global; no one wants to live next to a cholo by choice. Many Americans with means are being priced out of their first choice. Global 1% have all the choices. I could get into the central banks and QE but your little Broken Spears’ brain wouldn’t understand.

        When well to do latinos, asians, blacks, and anglos enter a certain block, they aren’t going to put with some silly things — artwork on every tree, rock and wall.

    • Greed is that it is. This developer is expecting to make a profit over his costs of around $3.5 million, probably more than double his actual investment and costs. For most people, that is enough to retire on for life, and he;s getting that on a single project that he will be involved in for only a couple years.

      And so he can make such an ungodly amount of money, an amount that would make the huge profits previously criticized on condos look paltry, He ruins a family’s life, which is what moving them into a much crummier neighborhood at double the rent is. And he leaves Echo Park with another dramatically overbuilt and over dense and over-tall piece of crap that serves only to completely change the character and ambiance and pleasure that has been Echo Park.. And he eliminates yet more low-income housing in the process, the very thing of which we say there is a housing shortage.

      Its all perfectly legal – and it is a horror. I blame our once-Councilman Eric Garcetti for this travesty now spreading all over our community – Garcetti the one who pushed this small lot subdivision ordinance threw and who had told city staff that they have to meet numbers,regardless of any travesty it might cause. And I blame Mitch O’Farrelll for refusing to do anything about it, to refuse to give any help to the people impacted by it or fighting the destruction of our neighborhood.

      Someone should evict Garcetti from the mayor’s mansion and build a 10-unit small lot subdivision there (its a double lot). Gee, Even Garcetti got out of Echo Park — he doesn’t want to live around the projects he has pushed on the neighborhood!

      • HIs profit won’t be near that high. He paid $770k for 5 townhouse lots. He has demo and site prep. Construction costs will be at least $200/foot. Assume 2,000 square feet each, that’s $400k in construction per unit or $2 million total. Add in another $100k for landscaping and infrastructure. Round it up to $3 million in expenses and he hopes to get $4 million in proceeds. However you need to subtract 6% selling expenses. He’ll be lucky to net $750k out of the entire project.

        • I’d be surprised if these end up over 1500sq/ft. $200/sqft construction costs also seem a bit rich, given the shared foundations, walls and economies of scale. Even so, with those numbers, that’s close to a 100% ROI minus the financing costs over a couple of years, pretty incredible. Does seem that the potential for profits on SLO lots are distorting prices for single family homes in the vicinity; crunch time will be when demand ceases to keep up with new development. Or a district decides to restrict new SLO construction altogether. Neither outcome seems likely to contribute to stable pricing.

          • It will be a higher ROI. The key thing to note about small lot division is that a single parcel will be 5 separate lots. The homes do not share walls, they are merely a few inches apart, allowing them to override setbacks between themselves and sharing a driveway. Sometimes these projects can be great, and it is positive that this is a local developer, most people exploiting small lot these days are from the OC.

            And typically they are 2,000sf and up, not including garage and almost always a roof deck.

          • Great work, Tom Jim Joe Jay.

          • That ROI sounds pretty reasonable to me.

      • Dear Tom and your ilk:

        What you call “greed” is what most rational and responsible people call “investment.” And do you really think that that family’s life is ruined? Why do you think it’s ruined? Just because their time in that inexpensive rental in now-desirable Echo Park is over? To you and the dwindling people who think like you: L.A. is riddled with low income housing. Riddled. Any place within 5 miles of the true Eastside (east of something called the L.A. River), any neighborhood south of Washington, etc., etc.,etc. The Valley (have you been to Van Nuys in the past 3 decades? It’s a crummy neighborhood, so there is your low income housing. It is abundant. There’s also Maywood, Cudahy and Hawaiian Gardens. Good god Tom,

        Society and government cannot guarantee any one’s right to remain in a neighborhood they cannot afford. Period. It’s the U.S., not the Soviet Union.

        I’ll bet if your mommy bought a tear down and built a triplex on it that you would later inherit, you’d be happy your mom was such a forward thinking woman who left her child a healthy inheritance, and I’ll bet you would not call her greedy.

        And I have more: The anti-gentrification crowd just does not appreciate that builders like the one being vilified, are building because there is a NEED from fellow human beings. Those human beings just like any other person, but they just happen to have the expendable cash or good credit and a job. These buyers are good people.They come in all colors (for those of you who think they’re all evil white folks). Educated, skilled, and they saved. They didn’t spend their youth on drugs, tattoos, cigarettes and alcohol and hanging out at the Echoplex wasting whatever little money they happened to have in their pocket at that moment. People like that end up in trailer parks in the IE, or worse, skid row. I know 50 year olds who never grew up, and have never saved a dime but they seem to have money for cigs, alcohol, drugs and scraping around Echo Park and Silver Lake bars. There used to be a lot of those types in Echo Park and Silver Lake, and I am happy that their numbers are getting smaller. Good, they’ve gone somewhere not near. And they can take their stupid tattoo parlors and dispensaries with them.

        OK, now I must eat dinner.

      • Couldn’t agree more with you about Garcetti holding hte blame for the ruin of Echo Park. Absolutely right.

    • They escaped a war with to come here and work for minimum wage while raising a family.
      Seriously, check yr privilege.

      • So did the Cambodian family that lives down the street from me. They now own three successful restaurants and are putting their kids through college and own a beautiful home in one of Pasadena’s finest neighborhoods.

    • I love how white people like true freedom who who are born with a head start in this country on the backs of minorities think everyone else needs to work harder to get ahead. Gross over simplification.

      • Please explain the “head start” that I got “on the backs of minorities”

        Do you mean like when I was working full-time to put myself through one of the nation’s top universities, and got the call from the scholarship office saying I received a full ride for my excellent first year academic performance, and when I went to the bursar’s office to pick up my check, they said, “wait, you’re not (insert minority description here)! This is a minority scholarship, and we had you listed as a minority student” No soup for you!

        Is that the kind of head start on the backs of minorities you’re talking about?

        • Finally the BitterTRUTH comes out of True Freedom, got screwed for not being a minority an has been pissed off ever since. I got your ticket!

          • oh, I’ll admit, I was pissed at the time, but I was young.

            Being an optimist, in retrospect, I’m glad things worked out the way they did.
            It taught me to quit feeling sorry for myself, that the world didn’t owe me anything, and that if I wanted it, I’d have to fight and work that much harder.

            I ended up getting a merit based scholarship through a private company (thanks Kodak!!), and a GSL low interest loan. I still had to work nearly full-time, but it taught me how to prioritize and schedule my time and how near term sacrifice can pay long term dividends.

            So, not bitter.. just thankful.

            I just laugh when I hear comments where folks think all white people have it so easy. It just shows some folks ignorance and naivety.

        • Sure I’ll explain head start.
          White people are more likely to live where they like, more likely to be accepted into the school of their choice. Less likely to receive a harsh sentence for a crime, earn more for the same job than minorities and women. Less likely to be judged as qualified for a job…. I mean I could go on and on but its kind of pointless since you know this already. Simple test of that is if any white person could choose to be treated as a minority or as a white person they would choose white person EVERY time.
          In any event all those advantages amount to a head start. The backs of others are the generations of social privilege that where built while minorities where regulated to the menial and often back breaking manual labor.
          So there you go white privilege explained to a hard working white guy.
          … Oh and Steve m if Asians are so hard working why do they.make less than white people?

          • talk about a gross over-simplification. This is the problem with generalizations. Very similar to thinking all blacks are criminals or all hispanics are lazy and low-class. Generalizations are often wrong, and really the present an overly simplistic model built by a simple mind. Way to go, Mike.

          • lol I gave you statistics…rather easily supported by numerous studies I might add. You responded with a rather meager and unsupported to my knowledge comparison about how white people having and advantage is a falsehood similar to the falsehood that all blacks are criminals. Please show me even one study that supports the later.
            It’s fairly simple but so are you. White people particularly white men have an advantage in this society, one you obviously don’t want to give up.

          • “More likely to live where they like?”

            What does this even mean? How would you even quantify that?

            “More likely to be accepted into the school of their choice?”

            Tell that to the thousands of white kids who are under-represented in the UC system.

            “Less likely to receive a hard sentence for a crime.”

            The group that gets the harshest sentencing are blacks. Everyone else gets off easier. By your logic that means that everyone is privileged to some degree – not just white people.

            “Earn more for the same job than minorities and women.”

            Not true when it comes to Asians – the highest earning racial group in the U.S.

            White privilege debunked once again. My job is done here.

          • Mike, you are wrong. This is from the United States Census Bureau: Asians average family income is about 20% higher than whites. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-median-income-in-the-us-by-race-2013-9

            You see, not all racial minorities have bought into the America-is racist excuse. And, Mike, you know what, that is exactly why U.S. Embassies and Consulates have a line around the corner in every foreign country because immigrants want to come here more than any other country.

            And you know what Mike, this IS the country where anyone of any race (since you are SO hung up on patronizing non-white people as though you think they need your sympathy (but they do not) can make it. And most minorities just think that the white liberal patronizing people like you are just weird. They do not need your sympathy.

            This is THE MOST racially diverse country in the history of the world, and people like you still think we are a racist society. We are not. Pointing to anecdotes is just that. Anecdotes are exceptions, not the rule.

          • Northerner here is a study by the U.S. government that expalaiins what it means. I could point to several others but it would be a waste of time. RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES FACE MORE SUBTLE HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
            HUD study finds decline in blatant discrimination while unequal treatment persists


          • I love it when white guys try and cling to their crumbling privilege by pointing out how people from other countiries want to come to America to escape crushing poverty is an example of why minorities here don’t have it so bad so why don’t we stop whining. Personally I’m not whining like I said I’m a professional who went to a great school and guess what white privilege still sucks.

            Simple question before we continue the discussion. Is this a patriarchal society where white men have an advantage just by the nature of being born white and men?

          • Oh by the way Steve here is the answer to the question why “Asians” which is actually a generic grouping of specific ethnicities. But the simple answer is they don’t . You can read all about it in several places including below but basically it comes down to being concentrated in areas with the highest cost of living and a very small population. In other words in the areas they live in they make less than the white people living there with the same qualifications
            “accounting for regional costs of living [for Asian Americans] would lead to adjusted estimates of per-capita income that would be significantly lower for Asian Americans than for whites. Furthermore, the disadvantage faced by Pacific Islanders would be even starker than what we find in the case of per-capita income without cost-of-living adjustments.”

            . First of all, median household income is calculated by combining the aggregate incomes of all residents into a single household pot, with the basic assumption that everyone’s household is the same size. Yet, this is simply not the case: Asian Americans have among the largest household size of all races with an average of nearly 4 adult members per household compared to Whites, who have the on average the smallest households at 2.55. So, Asian American median household incomes are approximately 20% higher than Whites’, but with nearly twice as many people contributing their incomes to the same pot, indicating that median household income statistics grossly overestimate Asian American earning. When one considers, instead, the per capita income of Whites vs. Asians — that is, the median income per person rather than per family — the stark gap in annual salary narrows to a mere $3,000 difference ($28,000 for Asians vs $25,000 for Whites).


            In addition, calculations of either median household or median per capita income fail to take into consideration the geographic stratification of Asian Americans versus the larger White population. Whereas White Americans are found in all 50 states in America, Asian American populations are largely concentrated in specific states — roughly half of us live in California, New Jersey, New York, and Hawaii alone due predominantly to the impact of migration patterns related to this country’s immigration history. Yet, these four states also top the list as the most expensive states to live in, which will skew the apparent income earned by households located here. Thus, a recent study of the Asian American community by AAPI Data and the Center for American Progress opines:

            …accounting for regional costs of living [for Asian Americans] would lead to adjusted estimates of per-capita income that would be significantly lower for Asian Americans than for whites. Furthermore, the disadvantage faced by Pacific Islanders would be even starker than what we find in the case of per-capita income without cost-of-living adjustments.

            This quote highlights the final problem with citing an aggregate median household income statistic to make monolithic (and monolithically wrong) pronouncements about the Asian American community: Asians Americans aren’t just generic “people from Asia” (as O’Reilly retorts). I mean, does O’Reilly not realize that Asia isn’t a country but a continent encompassing roughly one third of the world’s landmass?

          • Sorry Mike, but you are still wrong. Asians, per capita, are the most successful ethnicity in America.

            Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Personal_income_race.png

            (You have taken a walk on the UCLA and USC campuses in the past three decades, haven’t you?)

            And yes, I am sure that Harvard educated O’Reilly is aware that there is a Korea, a China, a Taiwan, a Japan, etc. Why on earth would you conclude otherwise? Or were you just being snide? And why would you even bring up O”Reilly? Do you think that people are conservatives because this man is on TV with higher ratings than your CNBC woman? I forgot her name, but you know, the snide and angry short-haired woman who was on AirAmerica before it folded? (Bad business planing…)

            You did know that not everyone is a liberal, right? Diversity is more than just racial diversity right? Is it that you would like a one-party system, everyone a democrat? Hopefully you’re a “tolerant of thought” person. Diversity of thought, to me, is the greatest form of diversity. Especially since we have the most ethnically diverse city probably in the world right here.

          • It love how you’re holding on to the idea that Asians are more successful than whites to deny there is something called white priviledge. Even though your dead wrong.

            Let me simplify it for you Asians are say 3% who live predominately in urban centers where the cost of living is higher but the pay is higher so that’s 3 out of 100. Now if you compare there medium income to the medium income of whites in those same urban areas they make less BUT if you compare them to the national average including most of the country where the cost of living and medium income is lower they make more. It’s a totally misleading statistic that people like you love to use to say white privilege doesn’t exist.
            But let’s cut to the chase. So we can be clear since I notice you didn’t anser me before. All other things being equal, education etc do white people have a cultural advantage?
            Of course I’m tolerant of thought btw I would never kick bill of the air or try and stop people from listening to him or anyone else. If your for freedom of speech your for freedom of speech even for those who think the exact opposite of you. That doesn’t stop me from thinking he’s an entitled biggot.

          • @Mike

            As Steve pointed out Asians make more than all other groups in this country, both in terms of household income and personal income. You can try to find various ways to try to interpret the stats to show that they’re not on top, but the overall point still stands which is that Asians are far from the downtrodden, oppressed minority you wish they were.

            Why is this important? Because it prevents you from making the racist claim that whites are a privileged group in this country. Asians are doing quite well compared to whites. Period. There goes your blanket statement that all minorities groups have it worse than whites. There goes your theory of white privilege.

            As far as the HUD study that you cited goes, it says as much about how little “privilege” whites have as it does about how much privilege might still exist. That is, it shows that there is no absolutely no privilege of the kind that existed 50 years ago. Housing discrimination is illegal and there are absolutely no legal, systemic forms of the practice to be found anywhere. There are no racially-based housing discrimination policies that have been voted on and implemented by any regional white majority anywhere in this country. The little bit of discrimination that does exist is pretty small and is practiced by a very small group of people – property owners, property managers.

            Long story short, you have yet to show the existence of white privilege in any significant way.

            You ask a blanket question as to whether white people enjoy a “cultural advantage.”

            Absent any evidence, why would anyone believe that? Do you just believe in random things without proof that they exist? In fact, to believe in “white privilege” would be a racist belief, since it describes an entire racial group in a particular way that is inaccurate, unjust, and unfair.

            You think that by pushing the idea you are pointing out injustice. What you are really doing is creating a new injustice. You should think twice about your beliefs and ask whether you are really helping, or if whether you hold onto false beliefs as a way to justify your own internal bigotry and prejudice.

          • You sorta acknowledge it exists lol. I love how you say any “significant” way or ” it not as bad as it was 50 years ago. Like were supposed to be thankful there’s less discrimination. The problem is it’s not significant to you because you have no idea what institutional discrmination has on a culture.
            Its ok dude we deal with people like you who deny our experience Our whole lives. This country was built for and by white men. Women and minorities get screwed. Most decent people of all colors know this by this point and it’s not even that hard to decern. I havethere’s a lot of us working to change it. I have to say it’s sorta fun to watch the holdouts squirm as your priviledge gets encroched upon. You are the past or soon will be.

          • It’s real simple dude, show everyone some real injustice and some real privilege and people will be with you.

            You can’t, so you just alienate normal folks because people get that you’re holding onto outdated narratives that don’t reflect today’s world and you’re perpetuating hatred based on racial resentment. It’s ugly. It’s hard to admit sometimes that you’re the one who needs to change.

          • I showed u “real injustice” u tried to minimize it by saying it not “significant” I could show u literally dozens of studies about how blacks and brown are sentenced harsher for the same crime, overwhelmingly the subjects of stop and frisks, make less than whites with the same qualifications, are busted more for using drugs, and on and on. But there’s no point with someone like u. All I can tell u is all the not “significant” forms of racial inequality add up.

            Read the writing on the wall the trend is not “normal” ie entitled white men living comfortably with an advantage or even denying it exists is not the trend. Trying to position it otherwise is what’s actually outdated.

      • I agree with True Freedom.

        Mike, are the non-white and non asian minorities who are successful just lucky? Perhaps you should interview them and you will find that they didn’t buy into the tired old line that you’re espousing.

        • it’s just easier for unsuccessful people to deal with their failures by imagining there’s a system, an uncontrollable force, a broad ranging conspiracy that is preventing them from getting ahead.

          It’s much easier to invent a boogyman to blame than to look in the mirror.

          • You are the boogeyman

          • True Freedom: Few on this board will even attempt to address the reasons that asians are the most successful ethnic minority. It’s just not convenient and it is certainly not in tow with the liberal line that the country is racist, which is used to explain EVERY failure of ANYONE who isn’t white. It is simply intellectually lazy and dishonest, and provides a ready-made excuse for poverty, crime, and over-all past, present, and future failure.

        • Uh no I’m not lucky thank you. I went to a top school that I paid for with loans scholarships and grants. That doesn’t change the fact that the average white person who did the same thing had more opportunities to get there and more opportunities afterwards.

  2. 5 townhouse on that lot?!!!! Noooooooo!

    • how many multi unit bungalow sites exist in los angeles. are you complaining about all of those too? get a clue people

    • Nooooo what? Who are you and these others who think they can dictate the course of EP and SL? I think many of the complainers here are just people who rent a room in the neighborhood and therefore think they have rights that landowners do. Folks: If you OWN land, this country allows you to develop it, because it is your property. It is not subject to the whims of those people who simply rent a room nearby. This is the problem with renters actually. They have too many rights, and they think they have more rights than they actually have.

      • Speaking as a homeowner and landlord, the mentality you’re caricaturing is frightening to me. I can’t believe I live near and walk among such ignorance and stupidity in service of a religious devotion to the right of the stronger.

        Yes, SL and other rules in the city should serve the vast public interest first. No you can’t build whatever you want. We’re that true, there’d still be a diaper launderer on every corner.

        Take your free market fantasies and shove em

        • Boozin: I do not think you can point to a city code restricting diaper launderers.

          And I’ll bet you love the free market when it benefits you. Someday you might learn that the free market benefits all of us. (I can’t believe we are having this kind of a discussion in 2015.)

          Have you considered that when one city restricts development, there is a strain (rising prices) on neighboring cities? Can you fathom that or is that too much of an economics lesson for you?

          • Actually, restricting residential laundry was the very reason the zoning code was initiated. So stick that diaper in your pipe and smoke it.

        • Awesome reply thank you

      • Steve,

        I agree to a degree; there are limits to all rights; neighborhoods should promote ownership if they retain a standard of quality.

        You don’t want a ton of apartments around your home…

        • I fully understand that there needs to be zoning. But so many of these folks seem to have a career of complaining about someone (they don’t know) tearing down wreckage and putting up something modern (oh and green). They also seem to resent fresh faces and people from neighborhoods they don’t think are artsy.

          And they seem to think there is a shortage of low income housing. It’s everywhere. Maywood, Montebello, Boyle Heights, etc., etc., etc.

  3. Discounted rent for 30 years should feel like a win. Just cuz the joyride comes to an end one day doesn’t mean you lost.

    • word. i’m paying well over twice the rate for a smaller place (but better location). I’m not lining the pockets of developers. My money does to a family that has owned the house since it was built in the early 1900s, and I must say my rent at this place would be at least $500/mo more than it is currently, so I’m pretty happy.

    • It is not one penny discounted. It went up every single year by at least the amount of inflation, even nearly all the landlords costs are locked in under Prop. 13 and their locked-in mortgage, which might even have been refinanced a lot lower in recent years – meaning any lesser amount they might be paying than the going rent is simply showing how much extreme gouging is going on out there for rents. The rents are completely unjustified. These people were not getting any discount.

    • Assuming they paid $300 per month for 30 years, they would have paid $100,000 to someone else’s mortgage.

      That doesn’t sound like a joy ride to me.

      • Again, different James in the post above.

      • $100,000 for 30 years is indeed a joyride, because if you apply something called MATH, it would be $3333.33 per year. Yep. Joyride. And now it’s over, and yet so many on this board are screaming “Act up! Act up!”

        • When they started renting they were paying market rate. Their rent was indexed roughly to inflation over the years, so if there is a discrepancy between their current rate and the current market, that just means the market outpaced inflation. That’s it. It doesn’t tell us they got a good deal. It just tells us many others are getting a bad one.

          • 1985 is 30 years ago. 100,000/30= 3333.
            3333/12= 277.75 per month.

            That was a joyride 30 years ago as it was until the piper came this month.

  4. Oh for christsakes we get it already!!

  5. Every person I know who is renting in LA is paying way, waaay more for rent than these folks.

    Sorry they lost their cushy deal, but jeezus – hard to feel too bad when so many people are paying so much more.

  6. @ Cheech Please read the Times article before you comment and end up looking uninformed. There is no “cushy deal” 10 years ago everyone was paying this kind of rent. 20 years ago the daily gunshots were a reminder why the rent was so low. Anyone who thinks the Sanchez family has a “great deal” needs to consider the history of the area and the rules of rent control.

    Neither this Eastsider piece, nor Lopez’ times piece portrayed cry-babies, please look again.

    This family understands that they are going to have to move, but they are asserting their rights to the relocation rules and payouts that are the governing laws. Maybe if they were properly paid their relocation fees, they could actually afford to buy property. But, alas, this developer has attempted to scheme the system and say that this property, which has been a rent controlled duplex for decades, is really a single family home that had a bootleg unit established decades ago, and hence is not subject to rent control laws now, even though it was in the past. Thankfully, for the Sanchez family, the jurisprudence is clear on this: Salazar v. Maradeaga (1992) 10Cal App 4th, supp 1.

    So then, why doesn’t 4SITE just pay these folks and follow the rules?….. I’ll tell you why: The ELLIS ACT

    Developers don’t want to go through a proper eviction because they will have to follow the rules of the ELLIS ACT, a State law. The Ellis Act provides relief for property owners who no longer want to be in the landlord business and are looking to demolish their properties and pay the tenant a relocation fee. But, there are a few reasons 4SITE or any other developer wants to avoid going through the proper ELLIS ACT procedure:

    1) The family is entitled to an extension of 1 year since they are qualifying tenants

    2) The relocation fees are closer to $20k, not 12k or 4k, the low-ball offers thrown at them

    3) The Ellis Act applies to property owners who no longer want to be landlords. 4SITE has an apartment building on Temple that they plan to hold and operate. They are not going out of the landlord business.

    4) Once a developer has to use the Ellis Act process, a covenant is recorded on the deed of each of those 5 new houses that says those homes may not be rented out, sublet, air b’nb, etc. for 5 years. Each successive owner acquires the burden of this covenant until the date it expires.

    5) If the future owner of one of these $800k homes wants to rent it out within the 5 year period, they must first offer it to the Sanchez family, at the current rent-controlled rate, plus any 3% rent increases that would apply.

    • Jennifer, what rules are the developer not following exactly?

      As much as I can tell they offered a $19k relocation fee the family declined initially.

      How exactly does the Ellis act apply again? They’re serving eviction because they’re tearing down the house and building something new, ellis act does not apply nor do they claim it does. Tear downs are just, no cause evictions, totally legal.

      And Salazar v. Maradeaga is relevant to the renter living in the illegal structure, not the family living in the main residence.

      it sure seems like the developer has covered their bases.

      • They offered $12k initially, with immediate vacancy, not 1 year.

        Of course the Ellis Act applies– this is exactly what it’s for, to remove rental units from the market, which is what’s happening here as they convert a multi-family zoned property into SFR.

        A tear down is a just cause for eviction AND subject to both the Ellis act and rent stabilization since this property is covered by the ordinance.

        “Salazar” makes it clear that the court has interpreted bootleg units to be bona fide units fur the purposes of rent control. If the second unit was a unit, then the property is a duplex. It was assessed a duplex, it was monitored by LAHD as a duplex, it was rented out as a duplex, it was sold and listed on The MLS as a duplex.

        It’s a DUPLEX –and these folks should be allowed the full benefit of the applicable laws.

        • please excuse my lack of clarify. You misrepresented the ellis act as only serving purpose to allow landlords to close down their business. That’s clearly not the case so I’m confused why that enters into your argument. They’re tearing down the property which is just cause as you state, which is what I was attempting to communicate.

          • The Ellis Act was created to give landlords a legal way out of being in the business of land lording. That premise still exists in the legislation which is why the covenant to not rent out the property is part of the Act. Essentially, the State does not want speculators to abuse this ability to force out tenants through payments alone, so it extends the no-landlording provision for 5 years, even to successor owners.

            My point being that a small lot home without a 5-year covenant is going to be an easier commodity to sell than a home with a deed restriction. I see a few of these homes listed on craigslist and air b’nb right now as vacation rentals or sublets. Since there’s no HOA governing small lots, its a good bet. No rules standing in the way.

    • Talk about someone else being uninformed Jennifer D?

      Single family homes are not covered by RSO. They should have taken the money the developer offered. Now they will likely get nothing. I mean, the 19K would have supplemented that extra rent in Boyle heights for more than 3 years. That’s more of a transitional period than most people get.

      • This is a DUPLEX not a SFR. Check the records.

        • Property of Echo Park

          @Jennifer D – the second unit was unpermitted/illegal.

          • And it had two meters, two addresses, and two units according to both the assessor and LAHD. “Salazar” clears up the issue of illegal units– they count.

          • Busta, a no-cause eviction, as you wrongly claim this is, is illegal in this city. They can evict only for one of the stated causes, they must state the cause — you don’t know the eviction laws of this city. Of course, this eviction would be legal anyway, as it is legal to evict in order to take the unit off the rental market permanently.

          • Not the fault of the renter. Site the owner.

      • Jennifer D. is accurate. The county property records (as well as the city) show this as a 2 unit.

      • hopalong chastity

        You claim that the Sanchez family will end up getting little to nothing in relocation assistance because they did not accept the developer’s offer by the deadline.
        This is exactly what the developer wants them to believe. The developer is using a textbook strategy to force the tenant into a panic decision.
        The rate of success when using this strategy is inversely related to the tenant’s level of sophistication in legal/contractual matters.
        If the developer claims they are under no obligation to offer relocation assistance – then the only practical reason is to expedite the tenant to vacate.
        The developer would gradually decrease the amount offered until the clock ticks down to the legal eviction date.
        Why would the developer offer an original amount, then a reduced amount or nothing.
        They are trying to force the tenant to decide based on an incomplete understanding of the situation.

    • The Sanchezes were led to believe that they are living in a 2-unit property that is subject to the rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) and, therefore, that the demolition of the property would make them eligible for Ellis Act provisions (over $19K in relocation assistance and one year before eviction, among other things). Up until recently when LA Housing Dept (LAHD) made a determination that the property is not 2 units and NOT subject to RSO, the only way the Sanchezes could have found out that their unit was not subject to RSO was to visit the LA Dept of Building Services (LADBS) and pull all the permits–and the LACK of evidence of 2 legal units would have told them the property was single family and not subject to RSO. Meanwhile, every city/county/federal/private system would have told them otherwise: LAHD, LA County Assessor’s Office, LA Department of Public Works, the US Postal Service, the utility companies, the landlords (through adherence to RSO rules), the real estate industry (through listing the property as a duplex), and even LADBS’s online system ALL indicate that it is a 2-unit property, and therefore is subject to RSO. It seems unreasonable that a tenant in LA should have to go in person to LADBS and conduct extensive research in order to verify that the property s/he occupies is under RSO. Despite all this, Jennifer D is correct that there is legal precedence for considering the property 2 units and subject to RSO (and therefore Ellis Act provisions) even though LAHD recently determined otherwise. However, the time and resources of a legal battle seem unfortunate and unnecessary.

  7. Neighbors apartments sold in echo park everyone got paid big money from thirty thousand up to seventy thousand to vacate. KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!

  8. Anywhere within 5 to 7 miles of downtown LA is going up in price. Low income renters are probably going to be displaced sooner or later. You can’t fight the laws of economics.

    • Actually, it isn’t because of the laws of economics so much. It is because of the small lot subdivision law – that has made those projects so unconscionably profitable that there is no price a developer will not pay in order to outbid any potential owner-occupant to buy the house, only to tear it down.

      The small lot subdivision ordinance has caused housing prices to skyrocket beyond anything any typical Angelino can pay.

      About 70% of Angelinos are renters!

      • I agree, SLO is very attractive to both the developers and the cities because of its profitability. I applaud Tom for being able to see through all the fog

      • From a civic bottom line perspective this is precisely what a city should want – slightly more dense housing on existing infrastructure, built right in the middle of all the existing city services, taxes being paid at modern rates (and not discounted by Prop 13). I wish we could say this was an enlightened decision from the city council but I doubt it – I don’t know though, maybe a local historian knows the story with this ordinance.

        From the civic return on investment this makes a lot of sense to allow these types of subdivisions. Is it just or is it right, or ethical? I am not the right person to ask about that.

      • It’s closer to 60% renters and 50% if you include the whole county.

    • Large firms with connections to global finance are going into real estate. These are firms that live and die on government largesse of one form or another, and their presence debauches the rest of the market. So you see how any talk about the “laws of economics” is problematic?

    • I’m from the Ivana Trump life school Don’t get mad, get PAID!

  9. Rather than wade into the gentrification battle, let’s talk land use. When did it become OK to tear down single family homes and duplexes in Hillside Areas and build lot-line to lot-line small lot subdivisions? Complete lot coverage no matter what the form is so inappropriate for our steep hillsides.

    Originally the Hillside Ordinance was designed to ensure only 40% lot coverage (with a building envelope) to aid in stormwater recharge and ease the burden on the stormdrains.

    Cumulative effects? We have so much water run-off in our hills that permeable paving is not going to handle the 1 – 3″ of rain we get in 24 hours as opposed to the required 1/2″ per 24 hours the best management practices are required to handle. And then there’s the base of the steep streets like Baxter, Fargo, Cove, where the developers fail to understand the dynamics of water run-off of the steep hills and end up with flooded basements and garages that take 3 redesigns – after they’re already constructed to fix the drainage, so it drains to the street/stormdrains/river/sea.

    I think we can all speak to the lack of parking and the waiving of parking requirements as Small Lot Subdivisions replace older housing stock in the hills because City Planning doesn’t seem to think there are cumulative effects with parking either.

    • fair point, no matter what form, shall we remove all of these dotting the hills? http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1067/files/1554-4.jpg

      • Now, make those nice one-story bungalows 3-4 stories tall – and tell me that is not a horror.

        • so you want to go around and knock down any site on the hills, or within the city, that are higher an one story? i’m confused about ur logic.

          And tom, not sure if you’re hung up on semantics or what, but clearly the eviction is legal since it’s a teardown. it’s no cause as the eviction is due to no cause of the tenant, it’s because the owner is tearing down the property…

          • Most people don’t want to live next to an out of scale building. Maybe you do, That’s your problem.

            Los Angeles is becoming a gridlocked shithole with worsening emergency response times and it is becoming more and more evident every day that developers have been set on building as much as possible before the dysfunctional zoning situation can be addressed and some transparency brought into the process.

    • I agree that housing in the hills should be restricted… they’re completely overdeveloped as is.

      But red tape like parking requirements are a huge reason for the high rents. If we really want to do something about housing costs, we should be reforming the zoning codes within a quarter mile of rail stops (and rapid bus stops too) so developers don’t have to worry about traffic impacts or parking spots in areas of the city that have the infrastructure in place to handle that style of development.

  10. On a side note, does anyone know what the apartments on Temple between Robinson and Dillon will be renting for?

    • Voice: Maybe you should do a lot more listening than talking: Those apartments WILL rent for market rate at the time, and it will constantly change in the smallest of steps.

  11. The caption under the picture is wrong. This is and always has been an illegally chopped up single family house. It should say “developers want to tear down this house to build 5 town homes” or at least “developers want to tear down this illegal duplex”. Of course the TRUTH doesn’t have the same implied anti-gentrification message so prevalent on this blog; the eastsider’s version of “if it bleeds it leads”.

    If anyone is to blame it is the property owner for either doing the illegal work or at the very least allowing it to happen. The RSO does not protect renters of single family homes weather your last name is Sanchez or not. Hope the lawyer they retained is working pro bono. Haha

    • Yes, it’s pro bono, which is why they retained Elena Popp’s firm. Check out the excellent LA Weekly story on BASTA and her Eviction Defense Network from a few months ago.

  12. It is a sad thing for the Sanchez family, but everything being done is legal. The real culprit here is the small lot ordinance. If the developer could not build five homes to replace the one existing home, then they would not have bought the property. The small lot ordinance is ridiculous as it lines the pockets of developers, congests the neighborhood, and evicts existing renters.

    • @kevin said:
      “everything being done is legal.”

      Oh good. Glad that’s the case.

    • the culprit is also the LAHD for not noticing that this was an illegal addition YEARS ago. They normally will put your house into REAP or worse for renting out an uninhabitable (by city code) unit.

  13. The SLO certainly seems to provide some questionable incentives. Not least of which is overbidding on a property to provide inflated comps for the new development. With 5 house replacing one, that’s some attractive leverage. Also do the same comps then get applied to other comparable single family residences on lots that are not viable for SLO? Would be interested to hear.

    That aside, my back of fag packet calculations suggest that if the developer here gets the new builds away at asking, they’re making a spanking profit. Plenty enough to provide some generous goodwill in the relocation allowance stakes.

  14. Would this even be a topic of discussion if the new owner of the property bought the house with intent to live there?

  15. Something I am wondering about: why couldn’t this family afford to buy the home from the owner?

    In Washington, DC their local laws allow some tenants the right of first refusal to buy properties. I think the people/creatures on the LA city council should consider such a law to allow long term residents the right to pay a market rate and keep their social connections in place.

    • First refusal means you have to match the top bidder’s price. What Good would that do?

    • Because the rent of under $1,000 is a whole hell of a lot less expensive than the mortgage, taxes, insurance and repair costs of holding that property now.

      The previous owner had a Prop 13 protected property tax rate but at the price paid for this home, they will be paying $600 per month JUST in property taxes at this property. Add in water, trash and property insurance and the monthly costs NOT including a mortgage and down payment is already more than these people pay in rent.

      They benefited, as did the owner, from the protections of Prop 13 for more than 3 decades, received an opportunity to raise their family, be involved in the area and now should basically extort the owner for as much as they can and move on.

    • Owner got a cash deal over the asking price

  16. Everyone in LA and the surrounding areas are getting priced out of their nice neighborhoods by greedy developers. They’re tearing down affordable housing and building these monstrosities that many hard-working educated middle class people can’t afford. And what’s ironic is, many of those apartments are sitting vacant or have revolving doors because people can’t continue to pay the sky-high rent. And tons of the people getting displaced are seniors, the disabled, Vets and low wage earners who cannot afford the cost of moving. Yet, you have people living and working among us who have absolutely no compassion for anyone as long as this unconscionable chain of events isn’t happening to them. I’ve read some of the comments here and most of the people commenting are siding with the developers. But just you wait until it happens to you, then lets see how pro-developer and pro-landlord you’ll be then. People should not just be thrown out of their apartments because of greed and the catering to the wealthy and affluent. And just because you didn’t move into an apartment years ago and got a good deal, it doesn’t mean you should be angry at those who did. My dad owned apartments and he always said that he would rather have a long-term tenant who he knew was going to pay and maintain the apartment than raise the rent to some ridiculous level and have people in and out which was costing him more money in the end. How I wish more people felt that way now instead of worshiping at the altar of money.

    • Wow, I have read all the responses to this article, and there are some great and thoughtful comments. And of course, the tired old “white people with money are evil” comments. But Syd, Syd, Syd, you make it seem as though Echo Park is the last neighborhood a low income, brown family could live in. There remains South Central, Cudahy, South Gate, Sylmar, Maywood, etc., etc., etc.

      • The point is that the anti-gentrification crowd (ironically made up mostly of white people already living in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods) have such a sense that they are the good ones among the caucasians and the new comers are the bad ones.

        In EVERY neighborhood in L.A., be it Hancock Park, Beverly Hills, the westside, the true eastside (east of the river) there are people of all races. What changes a neighborhood is money, culture, and the level of safety. Before Echo Park became Hispanic, it was largely white. They moved out after the WWII to other places for a few different reasons. Race wasn’t one of the big reasons. Money, culture, crime, and ways of living were the biggest reasons.

      • “white people with money are evil”(?). Where in “Syd’s” post was race mentioned? This obsession with race and ethnicity is the most insidious and despicable element of the pro-gentrifier’s profile. They just can’t seem to get over the insecurity that poor whites are being picked on . . . “Again?!?” (oh brother). FYI: there have ALWAYS been white people in NELA. Primarily in the hillsides but equally poor and working-class residents in the surrounding valleys. This conflict is between the working-class and and the privileged wealthy who areN’T swarming to NELA in droves like greedy developers keep fantasizing. Meanwhile, the rest of us are stuck with overpiced goods and services, increased traffic congestion, and pollution of every kind. Btw, NONE of those gripes are race-specific so get over yourself already.

        • Martin Arredondo

          The rest of us are also stuck with our property values going through the roof. What are you bitching about Westside Dos? That’s how us real working class homeowners can climb up the economic ladder.

        • Martin Arredondo

          What overpriced goods and services are you talking about?

        • Martin Arredondo

          You don’t own a home that’s why you are pissed off. Should have been working and buying a house when they were instead of wasting your time obsessing about being a big,dark,educated Chicano.

          • I am an NELA homeowner Aaand landlord and immune to the gentrifying threat but not the nuisance. Not bad for a Xicano, is it Marteeen? In fact, after all of your self-loathing browbeating, it turns out YOU’re of a lower class than me (lol). Classic!

          • Martin Arredondo

            So Westside Dos owns property and is a landlord but doesn’t want property values to go up? I’m sure he’s renting his properties below market values. Sounds like a incredibly stupid businessman. He’s definitely of a “dumber class.” It’s so easy to beat up on our “insecure big,dark Xicano”

    • No generalizations or exaggerations here:

      “Everyone in LA and the surrounding areas are getting priced out”

      “They’re tearing down affordable housing and building these monstrosities”

      “many of those apartments are sitting vacant”

      “… tons of the people getting displaced are seniors, the disabled, Vets and low wage earners…”

      Bullshit. People gravitate to a handful of isolated incidences and make it sound like it’s the norm. It’s not. Case in point: Highland Park has scores upon scores of large apartment complexes. I’ve lived here for years and I can tell you that apartments are not vacant, Tear downs are extremely rare, I’m engaged in the community and have not met displaced seniors or vets. etc., etc. I do know of seniors who have either moved here, or have happily moved away.

  17. Is 4Site Holdings going to provide parking for these future tenants? Because building anything that is ‘duplex’ or
    “quadruplex” on Preston shouldn’t be happening or on any other narrow street which is the majority of Echo Park. Respect the zoning in Echo Park! I have the city tow on my speed dial for the new tenant idiots that don’t know how to read signs that say ‘no parking-do not block driveway’. They park with no care in the world. And now you want to invite more to Preston???

    • There’s no street parking at night. This street has lots of old timers, it’s a plain SHAME!

      • that’s because everyone in the hood has illegally converted their garages into living space. Worth noting that if you’re an “old timer” you should cash out and sell your home on Preston and move to flat land. Not exactly a walkable area for the elderly.

  18. There’s more and more and more people so we need more and more and more housing. The days of folks living in a single family home near or within an urban environment will soon be in the history books. Manhattan at one point was full of single houses.
    Maybe folks should stop having children for a few decades and give the planet a break.

    • If LA had transit like NyC, then this density would be good news. But we’re trapped in the death machines that are cars.

  19. wait, Echo Park is gentrifying? Hold on. Let me get into my hot tub time machine and go back ten years to when this article should have been published so I could make a plan to move to a cheaper neighborhood or make some more money by 2015. Thank god this hot tub time machine.

  20. But Mr. Lopez this is the tragedy of rent control – allowing vulnerable people to arrange their entire lives around a handout that is ultimately unsustainable. If voters want to subsidize housing – they should provide it with public housing or subsidies – a much fairer solution for both sides.

    The cry of “greedy developer” is about as stinging as the cry of greedy farmer, teacher, doctor, etc. Mr. Wexman works to meet a demand and risks significant capital in the hope to see a profit in 2-3 years. If you think the outcome is a sure thing with no risk – it may be time to steer your time machine to 2009 for a refresher course…

    • Great points.

      Seems these days people want the upside without the downside risk. They cry foul, cry for a handout, cry for a gov’t protection or bailout if the downside happens. It’s like all those knuckle-butts that rolled the dice with rapidly increasing housing prices pre 2006, took out equity in their home or took out some risky negative amortization loan, then got caught when the bubble burst and stuck the hand out for a bailout.

      These folks enjoyed the upside of low rent for three decades. Now, they are getting a taste of the downside. Life sucks, sometimes.

      • Great points True Freedom. Housing policies are often overlooked as part of the problem, and not always the best solution. While on the topic of the housing bust: there is certainly a lot of blame to go around, including Wall Street, home owners, banks, shady mortgage brokers, etc. However, federal policy is often overlooked as a contributor, which encouraged home ownership. Fannie and Freddie owned the majority of loans, many of them with minimal down payments,

        • The sad thing is we’ve done next to nothing to address those underlying issues. We may very well be in the midst of another bubble, and the fallout might even be worse this time.

      • After 30 years they have paid well over 400k to someone else’s mortgage

        “The upside of low rent” indeed.

        • er.. make that $100k.

          Keep in mind that as they allow the owner to park their money there on that real estate, the house rises in value at a rate far exceeding inflation. Every day they are renting, they are missing out on being able to put money in their own pocket.

          Renters are the unsung heroes of the landowning economy. We should all be kissing their unfortunate feet.

      • Wah wah wah your still crying cause you lost your scholarship to a minority, wah, wah wah you bitter tool

        • just to be clear, since your reading comprehension seems to be lacking, I did not lose that scholarship to a minority. I was never eligible for the scholarship because I am not a minority.


    • Some one has helped pay off someone else’s house.

      What handout are you talking about?

  21. hopalong chastity

    The developer offered the Sanchez family an amount for relocation assistance if they voluntarily vacated their rental by a certain deadline.
    That deadline passed and the developer offered a reduced amount of relocation assistance.
    The developer claims they have no legal obligation to pay relocation assistance. The Sanchez family must agree to voluntarily move out by the new deadline to receive the reduced amount of relocation.
    If the second deadline is missed, the developer will not pay anything to the Sanchez family – even if they move before a final eviction date.
    The developer is bluffing. They are using a textbook strategy to force the tenant to accept their offer and minimize their potential expense of making the property vacant.
    The developer understands that the original offer of relocation assistance is much lower than what they would potentially pay to a more sophisticated tenant.
    If the Sanchez family refuse the second and final offer, they will end up receiving another offer from the developer. If they play their cards right, they will depart with an amount significantly greater than the original high offer.

  22. hopalong chastity

    When the owner of the house carved out a second unit and rented it out to tenants, the City didn’t object.
    The City did nothing to force the owner to restore the property to a single rental. Except for the fact the 2nd unit remained unpermitted, the City allowed it to take on every other feature of a legal rental unit.
    The 2nd unit caused the entire property to come under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance. This meant annual registration and inspection fees to help fund the City bureaucracy. It meant potential code violations which come with strict correction deadlines which must be met to avoid costly penalty assessments – more revenue for the City. The 2 units would also be subject to Rent Control, which is popular with renters and which local politicians promote in order to build a political voter base among renters.
    The separate DWP meter for the 2nd unit meant a separate account and monthly bill. The City relies on the DWP bill for imposing and collecting new revenue assessments upon residents of L.A.
    The 2nd meter almost doubled the amount of monthly surcharge the City collects from the property.
    So why is the new owner boldly declaring it as a single rental property which is not subject to the RSO?
    You can almost be sure they have received reassurance from their contacts within the City bureaucracy.
    Why isn’t the Housing Department and the city councilman speaking out to assert the jurisdiction of their own RSO rules over this property?
    Because the amount of fees and surcharges the city will receive for entitlement and build-out of the developer’s project far exceeds the revenue it currently delivers.
    In fact every step of the way – from permitting the new development, to construction, to connection to city water and sewer, to sale and transfer of the newly built units, to annual occupancy by the new owners – this property will generate hefty revenue from fees, surcharges and taxes.
    The politicians who run this city are addicted to revenue. They always need more and there is never enough. The pension obligations of the City are huge and will devour a larger portion of the annual City budget unless the City receives significant new revenue bumps.
    Appropriate density and preserving the character and livability of individual neighborhoods is a concept the local politicians can always lecture us about and will always claim support for.
    However, they are spending junkies and although they won’t admit it, that will drive their final vote on every issue

    • Everything you said hopalong is frighteningly true and it makes me want to vomit. How can we change this?

      • In Pasadena they just said enough is enough, and they are doing just fine, thank you very much. No one talks about Pasadena having a housing shortage.


        A housing shortage is a nice thing to claim in an area where you want to make a bunch of money off of crappy new construction while demolishing any building with character, and paving any green space that get’s in your way. But the gangs of lawyers and the developers themselves don’t let anyone tell them what to do in their own neighborhoods. I guarantee it.

        • Pasadena has zoning in place to allow for growth… but they just restrict it in their historic bedroom communities (and focus it closer to the downtown and gold line stops.)

          LA tried to do the same with the Hollywood Community Plan but NIMBY’s are tying up the process in court. I think LA is just too big to govern… split it up into boroughs maybe, and expand the size of the city council, so neighborhoods are a bit more autonomous, and local government is more responsive to the little guy.

          • read the link. The NIMBYS are really YIMBYS. Yes in my back yard.

            Yes to green space. Yes to community. Yes to local ownership. Yes to historic preservation.

            Sometimes saying yes to one thing means saying no to something else. Too fucking bad.

          • LA is too big to succeed.

    • Displeased with Michael O Farrel?

  23. So now not only are we going to have the added congestion from the monster Blackbirds units up on Vestal, around the corner on Preston FIVE more ugly townhouses? On these narrow winding streets..with no parking anywhere. Luckily I have a garage, but pity those who don’t.Getting mighty crowded up here.

  24. Beverly D'Angeleno

    Real estate and rents are already well above average incomes in Echo Park, so I’d say the area is already gentrified (if by gentrified we mean that average incomes are priced out). No putting the toothpaste back in the tube now.

  25. More than 30 years and this family never planned for anything? I’m sorry, but these folks have simply not been paying attention or taking care of business. 30 years renting, in a city as dynamic as Los Angeles and they never thought to get it together to buy something? I can’t imagine………..

    • Yeah LA is SO like dynamic. The real estate market is so sleek and brutal, right. These ineffectual, nondynamic ingrates need to step out the way or they’re asking to be crushed…

      …by the biggest lot of entitled, nany-state sucking real estate firms the world has ever seen

    • I wish Mr Sanchez planned on changing out of his pajamas for the photo in one of the country’s largest newspapers….

    • I can see you where never poor, never had to escape death, how luckey you are

  26. “a city as dynamic as Los Angeles”

    that’s good stuff

  27. Let’s hope the design is better than the eyesore of a building that they erected on 900 Hoover. The “bird house” is quite simply one of the ugliest buildings I have had the displeasure of setting my eyes on. They demolished the building that was there previously so therefore they had a blank canvas to work with and they came up with that? Atrocious

  28. “gentrification” has been operating in this country since the time native Americans were first visited by the Europeans. Nothing new here. Adapt or die.

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *