Measure S is on the March 7th ballot, less than a week away. It's a disaster of a ballot initiative, and will only worsen the affordability crisis afflicting Los Angeles if it passes. Hopefully the work of the massive, unprecedented, coalition that's formed in opposition will be enough to see it defeated.

If there's one silver lining to the year-long debate over this initiative (oh god, what have I done with my life), it's been how it's raised the profile of planning and the important role it plays in shaping affordability, health, access, the environment, and economic development in our city. Once this vote is finally over, I'm excited to get back to advocating for positive changes, in partnership with those groups and organizations throughout the city that are actually interested in equitable reform (unlike the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the Yes on S campaign).

In that spirit, below are just a few policy reforms that I think we should be pushing for in 2017 and beyond. If you have additional ideas, or nuance or caveats you'd like to include, please feel free to share them in the comments. Note that the list is not in order of priority; it's just a jumble of things I'd love to pursue.

If you'd like to be a part of the effort to turn some of these ideas into real-life policy, or you have your own ideas you'd like to contribute, I also hope you'll join our mailing list at Abundant Housing LA. We'll be shifting gears toward proactive reform and advocacy once Measure S is over and done with, and that's the best way to stay involved. And if you're leading an organization devoted to similar efforts, we'd love to partner with you going forward. Reach out!

Without further ado...

Begin a trial program for public/non-profit housing acquisition

The fact that we treat housing as an investment is at the heart of our affordability crisis. Investments by their very nature are intended to appreciate faster than wages, and so they're antithetical to long-term affordability and the economic sustainability of the city. We need to take a page from the many European cities that have adopted a policy of "social housing," which is housing owned and operated by the government or non-profits, rather than profit-seeking owners. (For the record, I would have a strong preference for non-profit rather than city government ownership in Los Angeles.)

Rather than focusing all of our affordable housing dollars on the construction of new housing—which is extraordinarily expensive, and for which the covenants expire after 55 years—we should also invest in acquisition of existing, relatively high-density, "naturally affordable" housing that can be preserved indefinitely. I wrote extensively about the potential benefits of such a program here (along with some additional benefits here), but the gist of it is that we can grow our stock of affordable housing exponentially, rather than relying on the linear growth and eventual plateau of our current model, and that it could be financially self-sustaining over the long-term. The city should create a program to test this acquisition-based model, with at least $10-$50 million in seed funds.

Bonus Housing Policy Priority: If the pilot program proves successful (and I think it would), we would then have the basis for a citywide ballot initiative to expand the program's funding, and impact, to tens of thousands of households throughout Los Angeles.