- “The data show that Angelenos across neighborhoods and council districts want more housing options, even if it means apartments being built nearby.” – Zachary Steinert-Threlkeld
- “These findings overturn the outdated perception that Los Angeles is a city of entrenched NIMBYism.” – Zachary Steinert-Threlkeld
LOS ANGELES — A new analysis by UCLA associate professor of public policy Zachary Steinert-Threlkeld suggests that most Angelenos support new housing construction, challenging the long-standing narrative that Los Angeles is dominated by NIMBY sentiment.
In a Los Angeles Times opinion piece published Tuesday, Steinert-Threlkeld responded to Mayor Karen Bass’s decision to scale back her fast-track housing policy, Executive Directive 1, which aimed to accelerate affordable housing approvals.
Bass explained her decision by saying, “As a mayor, you have to listen to your constituents.”
The implication, according to Steinert-Threlkeld, was that residents were resistant to new housing. But he said survey data tells a different story.
Since 2016, UCLA has commissioned an annual survey known as the Quality of Life Index to gauge residents’ perspectives on issues across Los Angeles County. In 2023, the survey included a question about where new apartments should be built to increase housing availability.
The options included “your neighborhood,” “streets that primarily have single-family houses,” “streets that primarily have retail stores, office buildings and other commercial uses,” and “streets that primarily have apartment or condominium buildings.”
Steinert-Threlkeld expected to find the classic NIMBY dynamic — that residents generally favor more housing but oppose it near where they live. Instead, the results painted a picture of broad support for new construction.
According to the survey, 86% of respondents supported building apartments in at least one of the settings. While it was not surprising that people supported building in commercial areas or existing apartment zones, the more striking result was the strong support for new construction in single-family neighborhoods and even in people’s own communities.
A clear majority, 64%, supported building apartments on streets that primarily have single-family houses, which make up most residential streets in Los Angeles. Meanwhile, 59% said they were comfortable with new apartments in their own neighborhood.
“These findings overturn the outdated perception that Los Angeles is a city of entrenched NIMBYism,” Steinert-Threlkeld wrote. “As a professor of public policy, I have to listen to data, and the data say Angelenos do want these developments.”
The support was not limited to one area of the city. The survey showed that in 14 of 15 City Council districts, majorities supported apartments on single-family streets. In 10 of 15 districts, more than 60% of respondents expressed that support. Steinert-Threlkeld said this cross-city agreement should be a signal to policymakers that the city has an opening to act.
Bass, in scaling back Executive Directive 1, had argued that she was responding to constituent opposition. The directive had been a central part of her early efforts as mayor, designed to fast-track affordable housing projects by cutting through permitting delays.
But Steinert-Threlkeld argued that leaders should not base policy decisions solely on the voices of those who show up to meetings or send emails, since they may not represent the broader population.
“More broadly, city leaders should develop the habit of evaluating policy options using representative survey data rather than responding to the vocal minority,” he wrote.
He added that UCLA’s Quality of Life Index covers not just housing but also issues such as crime, education, and emergency services, offering policymakers a reliable snapshot of public sentiment.
By contrast, people who attend public hearings or engage directly with city offices are often individuals with more time, resources, and education, which means their views do not necessarily reflect the city’s diversity.
Steinert-Threlkeld said the housing crisis is too urgent to allow vocal opposition groups to set the terms of the debate. He said the data show that Angelenos across neighborhoods and council districts want more housing options, even if it means apartments being built nearby.
City leaders, he argued, should use this public support to restore Executive Directive 1 to its original scope and even expand it beyond its initial restrictions. He said the city should not limit the directive only to income-restricted housing, because market-rate apartments can also become more affordable when regulatory delays and red tape are removed.
He pointed to recent examples where market-rate housing became affordable without the city having to directly subsidize it. “ED1 shows that new market-rate housing is affordable when delays and red tape are eliminated,” he wrote.
This argument challenges the conventional wisdom that private developers will only build luxury apartments if left to the market. Steinert-Threlkeld contended that when the process is streamlined, even market-rate housing can serve a broader segment of the population.
The broader political context underscores why Bass’s decision to roll back ED1 was significant. Her early housing policies had signaled urgency in confronting Los Angeles’ severe housing shortage and homelessness crisis. By retreating from those measures, Steinert-Threlkeld suggested, the city risks losing momentum at a time when public opinion may be more aligned with reform than ever before.
He noted that Bass was right in principle when she said leaders must listen to their constituents. But he argued that the data show those constituents are not as resistant to new development as commonly assumed. “Bass was right that leaders should listen to their constituents, and a clear majority of Angelenos are saying, ‘Yes in my backyard,’” he wrote.
The data also complicate the political power of NIMBY groups, which for years have mobilized against new development in Los Angeles. While those groups remain vocal, Steinert-Threlkeld’s analysis suggests they may represent a minority position rather than a citywide consensus.
He framed the situation as a rare moment of agreement on the city’s most urgent challenge: the scarcity of housing.
“Los Angeles has a rare moment of agreement on its most urgent crisis, the extreme scarcity of housing,” he wrote. “The only question is whether leaders will listen to the silent majority and pass and strengthen policies that permit more apartment construction across all of Los Angeles.”
As Los Angeles continues to grapple with its housing crisis, the debate over where to build and how quickly to act is far from settled.
But Steinert-Threlkeld’s analysis suggests that public sentiment may be shifting in a way that gives leaders more room to pursue ambitious housing reforms. Whether the city seizes that opportunity may determine how effectively it can address rising rents, displacement, and homelessness in the years ahead.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Categories:
Breaking News Housing State of California
Tags:
Executive Directive 1 Karen Bass Los Angeles Los Angeles housing Mayor Karen Bass NIMBY groups NIMBYISM UCLA UCLA survey Zachary Steinert-Threlkeld