Updated Legislative Suggestions For Altadena and a Warning
Things are about to hit a crescendo in Altadena, similar to what happened last summer with SB 782, so let's learn from our past mistakes
I have gotten a lot of responses to the Substacks over the last few days regarding Altadena from residents.
Everyone is kind of dazed, trying to figure it all out.
Things are moving fast. The speed is by design.
The goal is to confuse, disorient, and push through changes without opposition or minimal opposition.
It comes fast.
The result is permanent.
For those not used to it, well, it early overwhelms.
The playbook is well established. It has worked thus far.
Altadena got a preview last summer.
There were Bills moving (AB 797 and SB 782) which were going to affect us here.
We were calling out the Bills and their effects here on these pages.
We warned SB 782 was essentially a “Trojan Horse,” designed to undermine local control and other issues (including the ability to shift our tax dollars out of Altadena to other related projects in adjacent towns). We further warned about the newness of the project (Tax Increment Financing in these Districts had not been done like they envisioned in California).
Most important, we called out the fact there was no “veto” feature in the Bill, a feature which would have allowed Altadena a “veto” over decisions which could adversely affect the town.
The result? We have a County structure which they are using to rebuild and no way to stop any bad decisions. See what happens when you let them “steamroll” you?
We also championed AB 797, which would have afforded property owners a floor on prices for houses going back to January 2025 to purchase the land and hold it in a community facing nonprofit in Altadena.
The question of development would be a community discussion not merely an arbitrary decision made by out of town developers. The Bill, looking back, would have been a tool which could provide “relief” to those needing to sell, a problem which will become acute now because of the expiration of the Additional Living Expenses many are experiencing, and the reality of the costs of rebuilding become evident.
The Town would have had a say as to what the development could look like rather than relying on ambiguity from the County.
AB 797 was vetoed by the Governor in October with the support of some people within our Community.
So, as we sit here discussing the future of land use in our town, we are already “behind the eight ball” so to speak.
Early skirmishes which could have influenced the battlefield today were lost. Leverage was traded away for nothing. Options were removed.
For those who think there is no Plan, think again. You are just not privy to it.
We will be told SB 1090 is the “only compromise.” It has to be structured “a certain way” to pass. The electeds know the Game well.
They know how we will respond.
They know the first stage is to let the Town do its uproar.
They know the next move is the Town will respond with Media.
They will counter by calling those who are against the Bill’s “compromise” which is coming, “anti-development,” or worse, “NIMBY.” “NIMBY” is code for “privileged.”
They will use the same lines I heard about the Golf Course, “the people will have to eat it and those who were against it are just “wealthy” and “do not care about the rest of the area” when it was suggested to use Farnsworth Park instead of the Golf Course for transferring because of the number of affected homes and lack of existing homes around it.
The same tactics are coming here. They are designed to silence criticism. They know the tactics and are ready.
The interests are against the preservation of our Town.
New interests are already lining up to get in. The last hold up before they come is the fight over density, and how it will be done. I was told by outsiders “they do not want to be run out of town with heads on pikes.” They also know they had to build the coalitions to allow for that protection. The coalitions are there. We are in the final stages. Here is the “test.”
The rough lesson a lot of property owners are going to learn is in California, “you get what you vote for.”
Property owners are being outnumbered, and therefore their Property is not really theirs.
The land usage is changing fast.
What was the basis for their acquisition years ago is now gone. Instead, those owners hold something everyone wants. The religion is “density” supposedly to create “affordability.” in fact, those same property owners would likely not allow for Prop 13 to reset to create a market rate for their taxes, so here is a preview of the choice- let it happen in increments and wait until a disaster comes to a theater near you or create a rupture where the entire State is reset with their taxes. You know how this story ends.
We are seeing another preview of the future of California here. Altadena is our laboratory for many things.
In light of the broader fights, I suggest instead of trying to swim upstream, Altadena acknowledges the reality of what is before it. The situation is difficult, but here are the fixes I would put in since we are living in extraordinary times.
SB 1090 is going through Committees and will be Amended all the way until passage, postulations notwithstanding.
SB 1090 is going to be future tool, just like SB 782, for disaster recovery. It is a preview of the playbook, so it is time to create a solution to set the floor.
Disasters are coming to California- think earthquakes. It would be a massive reset so we need to have these questions answered.
It is a feature of our society, and has been one since the founding of this beautiful State. Los Angeles, in particular, is replete with natural phenomena, which shapes so much of our culture and society (read Mike Davis’s Ecology of Fear).
So, as we look to SB 1090 and its path as a potential solution, discussions have to brought into the mainstream, whether the Bill passes or not.
The reason is we have serious questions needing answers. These questions are about “fairness.” One side does not get to define “fairness” and we need to make it a real discussion, not an arbitrary dictation.
We have introduced some over the last few days, particularly about the Town and the County’s Plan.
Based on conversations on those posts, here is the Amendment I would suggest to incorporate the current political environment for SB 1090. It allows those nonprofits a set at the table, but it also does so with the transparency and fairness we need to rebuild equitably for all in Altadena.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument, SB 1090 will carve out an Amendment for nonprofits to continue with their SB 9 and SB 1123 projects. It is going to happen.
Any nonprofit availing itself of exemptions under this Act and acquires a parcel to use exemptions to local zoning under SB 9 and SB 1123 before January 1, 2030, shall:
Pay appropriate Property Taxes on the Parcel and any subsequent development of property on that parcel which exceeds local zoning restrictions as required by the current Planning Documents issued by Los Angeles County.
Disclose during discussions, prior to entering into for any parcel:
The intent to utilize the by right exemptions under SB 1123 and SB 9.
The full list of ownership in the land purchase.
The information shall be published publicly in a local newspaper and or publicly available website for public comment and alternate bids to be available.
The information shall be available for 15 calendar days prior to any escrow is accepted.
If the buyer does not disclose such information, they are subject to a requirement to pay the seller the full assessed value of the property based on the County’s assessed value of the full value of the land plus dwellings, and shall pay the County a similar amount in penalty.
The buyer shall also be subject to criminal penalties of up to 1 year of imprisonment, the loss of nonprofit status for a period of 10 years for any investor and principal of the organization, and a fine of $1 million per dwelling on the property to the State of California.
The above do the following:
It preserves fairness for all those who benefit from the rebuild.
If nonprofits are going to create density, they should pay for that infrastructure, particularly because much of it will be paid for out of our property tax and Climate Resilience District. Since those supporting the nonprofit ownership exemption are the same who supported the CRD and SB 782, they should be in full support of the fairness we are seeking. It is not for those who are rebuilding, seeing their property values reassessed and giving that increment to the County to rebuild infrastructure to do so to see the benefit of those who will densify and not pay any property tax on the land because they are a nonprofit.
It creates a transparent opportunity for property owners to know how to value their underlying land.
Lots, in the earlier days, were selling for approximately $500,000 per 7,500 or roughly $67 per square foot. If you pay say $1.6 million for 35,000 square feet, that lowers the cost to about $45 per square foot. When you build upward of 5 houses on that lot, the value of that land should reset to at least $67 per square foot. The lot would have sold for more than $2.3 million instead of $1.6 million. Homeowners are out those funds. Imagine if you are putting 10 houses on that lot?
We need to be educated as to what we are leaving on the table and what advantages are being afforded or underwritten by us in these times of fast moving legislation. All this is designed as “a feature” not “a bug.”
Moreover, by not paying tax on the land when they develop it, they will be availing themselves of the taxes everyone else is paying to rebuild their community while not just building one house, but rather, supercharging the density which taxes the infrastructure being rebuilt and needed which exceeded the original infrastructure on a “like for like” basis.
Therefore, in fairness, they should also compromise some of their advantages to ensure they are “part of the community as a whole” to “contribute” to our rebuild.
We, in these pages, do not begrudge those who want to help, but we are also “eyes wide open” about the role philanthropy plays in our community, which is not always “innocent.”
We know there are dual purposes of philanthropy, and in many cases, they can “do more” than they do.
Fire survivors are also victims, needing support here. To take advantage of their grief and misunderstanding of what is a real business decision is not right, no matter how an organization is structured, or its stated intent is. If the owner makes a choice to sell underpriced to a nonprofit, they should be allowed to know they are making that choice.
I leave you with the lessons we started with.
We advocated to put pieces in the original legislation shaping our recovery. It is time the community gets its ask right. The framing needs to shift to show how all commitments to fairness and inclusivity shall be carried by each party.
We are not living in Orwell’s world of “all animals are equal, just some are more equal than others.”
Who would argue what is being written here is unreasonable?
If so, I have a ton of historical examples to show they are not on the side of good.
Good luck to those advocating. Hope these pieces help.
Thanks.
The term is "additional" living expenses, not "alternate." ALE does not cover your typical housing costs; instead, it pays for the difference between your normal routine and the extra costs you face while displaced.