Map: In L.A., Local Control Is Local Confusion
The people who could benefit from new housing stock aren't on this map—they're exiled to unincorporated areas.

There are dozens of governmental entities with the authority to regulate how residents of the Los Angeles metro area can use their land: what owners can build, what they can't build, parking minimums, property setbacks, and other regulations that often apply to new housing.
This jigsaw puzzle of local governments within a single metropolitan area can cause confusion for residents. "Housing and labor markets work at a metropolitan level," says M. Nolan Gray, research director for California YIMBY and author of Arbitrary Lines, a book about how zoning codes harm American cities. "When you're deciding where to live or work, you don't stop your search at municipal boundaries—you look around within an hour or so commute."
The patchwork approach can worsen land use rules, Gray warns, because each city unofficially competes by passing increasingly strict regulations to please incumbent property owners. Residents of, say, Santa Clarita or Pasadena get to protect their backyard views, the "character" of an old neighborhood, or a road with sparse traffic, while people who could benefit from new housing stock are exiled to unincorporated parts of the Los Angeles metro area, where there are fewer stakeholders to raise a ruckus.
Click to expand:

From the October 2023 issue of Reason Magazine.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So a big centralized city government is preferable?
Check your premises, Boehm.
Why not a small centralized city government?
We have a county government which would be the Big City Government you want. It would cover 5,000 + square miles with huge variety. It would require the abolition of 89 cities and turning unincorporated areas into part of one gigantic megalopolis. The first thing each area would do is the exact same things which city of LA is doing now; demand separate Community Plans for each area.
If people do not know in which city they live, they can easily enter their address and Zip code into Google and it will tell. I think Google is easier. If they do not their own address and ZIP code, they are not ready to start land use litigation.
As a resident of a pocket of unincorporated L.A. County, please don't get rid of the cities.
I like that I can get permits through in days rather than months because the DBS office covering my area isn't overwhelmed the way municipal offices are.
I like that the streets in my neighborhood get repaired before anyone complains.
I do wish I could put a raised planter in the "parkway" space in font of my house to grow edible plants (L.A. City now allows that with no permits required, but the County doesn't allow it or even allow for requesting a permit), but I also don't have to pay any city-related property tax levies; the county-level additional levies I do pay almost double my total property tax liability, I see no reason to add to that pile.
The response time for the Sherrif's department could be better than it is in my neighborhood, but there are ways (even in CA) to compensate for that.
'....Local control is local confusion. That is why I invented Communism to remove the confusion....' Karl Marx 'The Communist Manifesto', page 112.
It's 2023 they've reimagined it as "The Left Libertarian Manifesto" if the premises of Reason are any guide. Boehm here is arguing for a centralized government to enact his preferred preferences over large swaths of the populace and against individuals working together in a localized area to work for theirs.
You know who else tried to unite local polities with a diverse mix of rules and regulations under one powerful central state?
Alexander Hamilton?
There are dozens of governmental entities with the authority to regulate how residents of the Los Angeles metro area can use their land:
And yet none of them have one iota of authority re the tax revenues that derive from that land. The differences in tax rates/$100,000 are even more striking within LA County. Every lot and parcel has its own tax rates - but driven from higher up. The highest tax rates (and lowest land values) are in those unincorporated areas – with godawful commutes — or in shall we say ethnic communities.
If a community can’t balance its means (revenues) and its desires (spending/regs), then the spending/regulation side will simply turn into an unrestrained child’s Santa-gimme list.
At the local neighborhood and house by house level, the differences in prop tax/$100,000 are even more stark – from less than $200 to over $800. All of those differences controlled by Prop13 and related Props – not a locality or even the state or a local referendum – and increasing over time. The under $200 lots will never again come onto market so the land there is never going to available for development. So near impossible to even aggregate larger lots. Those are also the most powerful local people who will oppose all development near them because they don’t want changes and the more regs to stop that the better.
There is no possible solution to housing costs in California except exit. None. Stop trying. Prop 13 is the most popular thing among Californians so it will never change. It eliminates local control over the most local tax base so it eliminates all accountability on local govt for the spending/regs side – and that will increase over time. So no local solution. All political decisions in CA will increasingly centralize at the state level – but CA is, by far, the most unrepresentative/unaccountable state level govt and those features are in its constitution. So that won’t change. Prop 13 designed ‘land’ to be, essentially, feudal – and it has worked well. Two classes of ‘citizen’ – serf and lord – depending on how long one has owned their property.
I can guarantee that any comments to this post will blast me and everything that is said. And praise Prop13 to the skies. Prop 13 is never mentioned in a Reason article (except one by Virginia Postrel many years ago). Yet the notion persists that somewhere there is a solution to housing costs there. There isn’t. The only solution for the young who don’t have land to inherit is – leave. It will only get worse each year as it has done for 40+ years.
So what we need is some kind of strong, central authority to determine the rules for construction and community.
And the percentage of "affordable" units, and which selfless public servants also qualify for reduced rent or purchase prices.
Reason, always cheerleading for more central control and statewide edicts. The California YIMBY laws aren't just abolishing local restrictions and letting the market sort things out, the state government is requiring cities to present a plan for adding high density housing, and then rejecting those plans if they're not woke enough, forcing cities to add even more housing, even if the residents of those cities don't want more.