XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-mandating-low-income-housin g-in-palisades-rebuild-could-be-unconstitutional-experts-say/ar-AA1yEld5

(The Center Square) - A prominent public-interest law firm is warning
that Los Angeles� apparent requirement that older apartments be replaced
with income-restricted low-income housing is an �unconstitutional
taking� that, if applied to homes destroyed in the Pacific Palisades
fire, would add �insult to injury.�

Last week, The Center Square reported on a newly passed Los Angeles
ordinance that could require a large portion of apartment units lost to
the Palisades Fire to be replaced with low-income housing.

The ordinance could require all multifamily units built before October
1978, which are subject to city rent controls, to be replaced with income-restricted units affordable to low-income households (relative to
city, not Palisades income levels).

It also could require the replacement of post-October 1978 units that
have been occupied with a low-income renter in the past five years with
a low-income unit, and, for units for which the owner does not have
complete five-year tenant household income history, replacement with
low-income and very-low income units in proportion to the citywide
average.

The key legal question regarding the ordinance in question, which aims
to ensure �No Net Loss of Dwelling Units,� is whether the
income-restricted replacement housing requirement for �replacement of
existing or demolished protected units� applies to housing lost by
natural disasters.

UC Davis professor and property law expert Chris Elmendorf says other
portions of Los Angeles code do treat natural disasters differently than intentional demolition, and referenced the city�s nonconforming uses provisions. Under this code, buildings that would not conform with
today�s codes or allowed uses could today be rebuilt as they were before
if they were damaged or destroyed by a declared emergency.

However, it�s unclear if these nonconforming use provisions for natural disasters would apply to income restrictions as well.

Elmendorf also indicated the city�s ordinance is written as such that it
could interpret the replacement of �demolished� units to not apply so as
to make rebuilding economically feasible.

Elmendorf said that in the case that the ordinance does actually require replacement of some fire-destroyed apartments with low-income housing
that costs more to build than it generates in revenue, that it may be
found to be an unconstitutional taking.

Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian public-interest firm that
recently secured a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that government
fees must be related to and proportional to the fee�s interest,
suggested the ordinance may apply to fire-destroyed units, and said that
the ordinance is an unconstitutional taking.

�Rent control is an unconstitutional taking of property without the
payment of just compensation. This scheme is admittedly a form of rent
control, so it�s clear the City of Los Angeles wants to be sued by its
own residents,� said Mark Miller, senior attorney at Pacific Legal
Foundation, to The Center Square. �Moreover, the city�s decision to take
the property rights of property owners who already suffered the tragedy
of losing their homes to a fire that the city was woefully unprepared to contain adds insult to injury.�

�The city should let people build what they want and lease what they
build to who they choose,� continued Miller. �In the other 49 states of
the United States of America, that is called �freedom.�"

Pacific Legal Foundation recently settled a similar case on so-called �inclusionary zoning.� �Inclusionary zoning� is the practice by which
cities require new construction to pay large fees or include or
financially support the construction of price-controlled �affordable�
housing.

In that case, one moderate-income California family trying to build two
new homes on its property was slapped with a $20,000 �inclusionary
zoning� fee the city said is necessary to improve housing affordability, provided that the family neither wanted to give the city land for price-controlled housing, or sign a 55-year price guarantee on the
housing they are building.

Pacific Legal Foundation argued the fee was not related to the matter at
hand, as it was unclear how building the new homes would result in
higher local home prices, and was not proportional to any assumed
increase in housing prices from building new homes.

The city settled the lawsuit several months later, refunding the fee and
paying the family for its hardship, without going to court, which
prevented the �affordable� housing rule from being fully adjudicated.
It�s likely a similar argument could be used against Los Angeles� law,
albeit under higher national scrutiny.


--
November 5, 2024 - Congratulations President Donald Trump. We look
forward to America being great again.

The disease known as Kamala Harris has been effectively treated and
eradicated.

We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so that
stupid people won't be offended.

Durham Report: The FBI has an integrity problem. It has none.

Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

On 2/8/2025 11:05 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-mandating-low-income-housin g-in-palisades-rebuild-could-be-unconstitutional-experts-say/ar-AA1yEld5

(The Center Square) - A prominent public-interest law firm is warning
that Los Angeles’ apparent requirement that older apartments be replaced with income-restricted low-income housing is an “unconstitutional
taking” that, if applied to homes destroyed in the Pacific Palisades
fire, would add “insult to injury.”

Last week, The Center Square reported on a newly passed Los Angeles
ordinance that could require a large portion of apartment units lost to
the Palisades Fire to be replaced with low-income housing.

The ordinance could require all multifamily units built before October
1978, which are subject to city rent controls, to be replaced with income-restricted units affordable to low-income households (relative to city, not Palisades income levels).

Legality aside, it is a society problem, common in many areas. People
in the high priced houses need the services of low paid people but we
don't want the living near us.

You can operate the fancy coffee shop or drugstore that I need but I'm
not paying you enough to live here. Nor do I want cheap housing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 8 Feb 2025 23:35:09 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n>
wrote:

On 2/8/2025 11:05 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-mandating-low-income-housin
g-in-palisades-rebuild-could-be-unconstitutional-experts-say/ar-AA1yEld5

(The Center Square) - A prominent public-interest law firm is warning
that Los Angeles� apparent requirement that older apartments be replaced
with income-restricted low-income housing is an �unconstitutional
taking� that, if applied to homes destroyed in the Pacific Palisades
fire, would add �insult to injury.�

Last week, The Center Square reported on a newly passed Los Angeles
ordinance that could require a large portion of apartment units lost to
the Palisades Fire to be replaced with low-income housing.

The ordinance could require all multifamily units built before October
1978, which are subject to city rent controls, to be replaced with
income-restricted units affordable to low-income households (relative to
city, not Palisades income levels).

You're not a very good lawyer if you can't find some basis to challenge
most laws. But that doesn't mean that side will win.

Legality aside, it is a society problem, common in many areas. People
in the high priced houses need the services of low paid people but we
don't want the living near us.

Us!!! So you don't want me and my friends living near you? Just for
that, I won't.

You can operate the fancy coffee shop or drugstore that I need but I'm
not paying you enough to live here. Nor do I want cheap housing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

Ed P wrote:

On 2/8/2025 11:05 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-mandating-low-income-housin
g-in-palisades-rebuild-could-be-unconstitutional-experts-say/ar-AA1yEld5

(The Center Square) - A prominent public-interest law firm is warning
that Los Angeles’ apparent requirement that older apartments be replaced >> with income-restricted low-income housing is an “unconstitutional
taking” that, if applied to homes destroyed in the Pacific Palisades
fire, would add “insult to injury.”

Last week, The Center Square reported on a newly passed Los Angeles
ordinance that could require a large portion of apartment units lost to
the Palisades Fire to be replaced with low-income housing.

The ordinance could require all multifamily units built before October
1978, which are subject to city rent controls, to be replaced with
income-restricted units affordable to low-income households (relative to
city, not Palisades income levels).

Legality aside, it is a society problem, common in many areas. People in the high priced houses need the services of low paid people but we
don't want the living near us.

You can operate the fancy coffee shop or drugstore that I need but I'm not paying you enough to live here.  Nor do I want cheap housing.

Gov. Gavin NewScam and his altruistic Democrats will use your taxpayer money to build the new apartments for Gavin's illegal slaves.

In about 200 years, your descendants will be asked to pay reparations to the descendants of Gavin's illegal slaves.

It's called taxpayer privilege. Sound familiar?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 04:05:05 -0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-insurrection@mail.house.gov> wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-mandating-low-income-housin >g-in-palisades-rebuild-could-be-unconstitutional-experts-say/ar-AA1yEld5

(The Center Square) - A prominent public-interest law firm is warning
that Los Angeles� apparent requirement that older apartments be replaced
with income-restricted low-income housing is an �unconstitutional
taking� that, if applied to homes destroyed in the Pacific Palisades
fire, would add �insult to injury.�

Last week, The Center Square reported on a newly passed Los Angeles
ordinance that could require a large portion of apartment units lost to
the Palisades Fire to be replaced with low-income housing.

The ordinance could require all multifamily units built before October
1978, which are subject to city rent controls, to be replaced with >income-restricted units affordable to low-income households (relative to >city, not Palisades income levels).

It also could require the replacement of post-October 1978 units that
have been occupied with a low-income renter in the past five years with
a low-income unit, and, for units for which the owner does not have
complete five-year tenant household income history, replacement with >low-income and very-low income units in proportion to the citywide
average.

No federal money to California while they pull this garbage.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 23:35:09 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:

On 2/8/2025 11:05 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-mandating-low-income-housin
g-in-palisades-rebuild-could-be-unconstitutional-experts-say/ar-AA1yEld5

(The Center Square) - A prominent public-interest law firm is warning
that Los Angeles� apparent requirement that older apartments be replaced
with income-restricted low-income housing is an �unconstitutional
taking� that, if applied to homes destroyed in the Pacific Palisades
fire, would add �insult to injury.�

Last week, The Center Square reported on a newly passed Los Angeles
ordinance that could require a large portion of apartment units lost to
the Palisades Fire to be replaced with low-income housing.

The ordinance could require all multifamily units built before October
1978, which are subject to city rent controls, to be replaced with
income-restricted units affordable to low-income households (relative to
city, not Palisades income levels).

Legality aside, it is a society problem, common in many areas. People
in the high priced houses need the services of low paid people but we
don't want the living near us.

Wow. Very elitist in tone.

You can operate the fancy coffee shop or drugstore that I need but I'm
not paying you enough to live here. Nor do I want cheap housing.

Oddly everything worked out fine until we started monkeying with
businesses and housing.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

On 2/9/2025 10:30 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 23:35:09 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:

On 2/8/2025 11:05 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-mandating-low-income-housin >>> g-in-palisades-rebuild-could-be-unconstitutional-experts-say/ar-AA1yEld5 >>>
(The Center Square) - A prominent public-interest law firm is warning
that Los Angeles’ apparent requirement that older apartments be replaced >>> with income-restricted low-income housing is an “unconstitutional
taking” that, if applied to homes destroyed in the Pacific Palisades
fire, would add “insult to injury.”

Last week, The Center Square reported on a newly passed Los Angeles
ordinance that could require a large portion of apartment units lost to
the Palisades Fire to be replaced with low-income housing.

The ordinance could require all multifamily units built before October
1978, which are subject to city rent controls, to be replaced with
income-restricted units affordable to low-income households (relative to >>> city, not Palisades income levels).

Legality aside, it is a society problem, common in many areas. People
in the high priced houses need the services of low paid people but we
don't want the living near us.

Wow. Very elitist in tone.

Elitist? Yes, it is. Ask your neighbors. That has been going on for
many years.

Any empty lots near you? Tell your neighbors there is a plan to put low
income housing on it and see their reaction .

You can operate the fancy coffee shop or drugstore that I need but I'm
not paying you enough to live here. Nor do I want cheap housing.

Oddly everything worked out fine until we started monkeying with
businesses and housing.

When was that? I grew up in Philadelphia and remember such goings on in
the 50s and 60s. If you were black, there were places you just could
not buy. In the 60s, a few did push the issue and it made the news.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

Ed P wrote:

When was that?  I grew up in Philadelphia and remember such goings
on in the 50s and 60s.  If you were black, there were places you
just could not buy.  In the 60s, a few did push the issue and it
made the news.

I would put it about 1980. Since there have been so many nice
paying jobs in California, the rest of the country has been
crowding in. They bought up houses, and could bid higher prices
for them. It has become too expensive for poor people to get
apartments. San Francisco had a lot of cheap apartments but when
Santa Clara County ran out of expensive housing, business set up
commuter services, and they outbid previous tenants.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:77ihqj5ssvo7udu66bj9t77sjaeqpqo3cg@4ax.com...

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 04:05:05 -0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-insurrection@mail.house.gov> wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-mandating-low-income-housin >>g-in-palisades-rebuild-could-be-unconstitutional-experts-say/ar-AA1yEld5

(The Center Square) - A prominent public-interest law firm is warning
that Los Angeles' apparent requirement that older apartments be replaced >>with income-restricted low-income housing is an "unconstitutional
taking" that, if applied to homes destroyed in the Pacific Palisades
fire, would add "insult to injury."

Last week, The Center Square reported on a newly passed Los Angeles >>ordinance that could require a large portion of apartment units lost to
the Palisades Fire to be replaced with low-income housing.

The ordinance could require all multifamily units built before October >>1978, which are subject to city rent controls, to be replaced with >>income-restricted units affordable to low-income households (relative to >>city, not Palisades income levels).

It also could require the replacement of post-October 1978 units that
have been occupied with a low-income renter in the past five years with
a low-income unit, and, for units for which the owner does not have >>complete five-year tenant household income history, replacement with >>low-income and very-low income units in proportion to the citywide
average.

No federal money to California while they pull this garbage.

Yes, but they can not force them to change what had been built on the
property due to a disaster.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

Ed P wrote:

On 2/8/2025 11:05 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-mandating-low-income-

hous

in
g-in-palisades-rebuild-could-be-unconstitutional-experts-say/ar-

AA1yEld

5

(The Center Square) - A prominent public-interest law firm is warning
that Los Angeles’ apparent requirement that older apartments be
replaced with income-restricted low-income housing is an
“unconstitutional taking” that, if applied to homes destroyed in
the Pacific Palisades fire, would add “insult to injury.”

Last week, The Center Square reported on a newly passed Los Angeles
ordinance that could require a large portion of apartment units lost
to the Palisades Fire to be replaced with low-income housing.

The ordinance could require all multifamily units built before

October

1978, which are subject to city rent controls, to be replaced with
income-restricted units affordable to low-income households (relative
to city, not Palisades income levels).

Legality aside, it is a society problem, common in many areas. People
in the high priced houses need the services of low paid people but we
don't want the living near us.

You can operate the fancy coffee shop or drugstore that I need but I'm
not paying you enough to live here.  Nor do I want cheap housing.

Gov. Gavin NewScam and his altruistic Democrats will use your taxpayer
money to build the new apartments for Gavin's illegal slaves.

In about 200 years, your descendants will be asked to pay reparations to
the descendants of Gavin's illegal slaves.

It's called taxpayer privilege. Sound familiar?

We can't have middle class riff raff living alongside the rich.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

NoBody wrote:

You can operate the fancy coffee shop or drugstore that I need but I'm >>>> not paying you enough to live here. Nor do I want cheap housing.

Oddly everything worked out fine until we started monkeying with
businesses and housing.

When was that? I grew up in Philadelphia and remember such goings on in
the 50s and 60s. If you were black, there were places you just could
not buy. In the 60s, a few did push the issue and it made the news.

Remember the government housing buildings that the residents let go
until they had to be demolished?

Pepperage Farm remembers.

What was the address in Palisades Park?

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 12:15:56 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:

On 2/9/2025 10:30 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 23:35:09 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:

On 2/8/2025 11:05 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-mandating-low-income-housin >>>> g-in-palisades-rebuild-could-be-unconstitutional-experts-say/ar-AA1yEld5 >>>>
(The Center Square) - A prominent public-interest law firm is warning
that Los Angeles� apparent requirement that older apartments be replaced >>>> with income-restricted low-income housing is an �unconstitutional
taking� that, if applied to homes destroyed in the Pacific Palisades
fire, would add �insult to injury.�

Last week, The Center Square reported on a newly passed Los Angeles
ordinance that could require a large portion of apartment units lost to >>>> the Palisades Fire to be replaced with low-income housing.

The ordinance could require all multifamily units built before October >>>> 1978, which are subject to city rent controls, to be replaced with
income-restricted units affordable to low-income households (relative to >>>> city, not Palisades income levels).

Legality aside, it is a society problem, common in many areas. People
in the high priced houses need the services of low paid people but we
don't want the living near us.

Wow. Very elitist in tone.

Elitist? Yes, it is. Ask your neighbors. That has been going on for
many years.

They aren't elitist. They simply believe that you live a life that
you can afford.

Duh.

Any empty lots near you? Tell your neighbors there is a plan to put low >income housing on it and see their reaction .

You have no idea of what you're asking...
We have zero open lots yet the state is telling us we must build
"affordable housing".

Laughing.

You can operate the fancy coffee shop or drugstore that I need but I'm
not paying you enough to live here. Nor do I want cheap housing.

Oddly everything worked out fine until we started monkeying with
businesses and housing.

When was that? I grew up in Philadelphia and remember such goings on in
the 50s and 60s. If you were black, there were places you just could
not buy. In the 60s, a few did push the issue and it made the news.

Remember the government housing buildings that the residents let go
until they had to be demolished?

Pepperage Farm remembers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.los-angeles, alt.home.repair
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics

On 2/11/2025 3:54 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 12:15:56 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:

On 2/9/2025 10:30 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 23:35:09 -0500, Ed P <esp@snet.n> wrote:

On 2/8/2025 11:05 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/la-mandating-low-income-housin >>>>> g-in-palisades-rebuild-could-be-unconstitutional-experts-say/ar-AA1yEld5 >>>>>
(The Center Square) - A prominent public-interest law firm is warning >>>>> that Los Angeles’ apparent requirement that older apartments be replaced
with income-restricted low-income housing is an “unconstitutional
taking” that, if applied to homes destroyed in the Pacific Palisades >>>>> fire, would add “insult to injury.”

Last week, The Center Square reported on a newly passed Los Angeles
ordinance that could require a large portion of apartment units lost to >>>>> the Palisades Fire to be replaced with low-income housing.

The ordinance could require all multifamily units built before October >>>>> 1978, which are subject to city rent controls, to be replaced with
income-restricted units affordable to low-income households (relative to >>>>> city, not Palisades income levels).

Legality aside, it is a society problem, common in many areas. People >>>> in the high priced houses need the services of low paid people but we
don't want the living near us.

Wow. Very elitist in tone.

Elitist? Yes, it is. Ask your neighbors. That has been going on for
many years.

They aren't elitist.

You just said two lines back they *are* elitist.

Any empty lots near you? Tell your neighbors there is a plan to put low
income housing on it and see their reaction .

You have no idea of what you're asking.

He knows exactly what he's saying.

You can operate the fancy coffee shop or drugstore that I need but I'm >>>> not paying you enough to live here. Nor do I want cheap housing.

Oddly everything worked out fine until we started monkeying with
businesses and housing.

When was that? I grew up in Philadelphia and remember such goings on in
the 50s and 60s. If you were black, there were places you just could
not buy. In the 60s, a few did push the issue and it made the news.

Remember the government housing buildings that the residents let go
until they had to be demolished?

No, and neither do you. You're making stuff up again.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)