The verdict so far: progress, but not a turnaround.

For decades, MacArthur Park has carried a complicated identity. It was once a Los Angeles landmark celebrated in song and film, ringed by grand hotels and civic pride. In recent years, though, it has become better known for open-air drug use, petty crime and the kind of neglect that leaves sidewalks reeking and residents on edge.

City leaders have pledged to change that trajectory. While nobody expects the park to fully recapture its mid-century glamour, officials say the goal is more modest and more urgent: give the surrounding Westlake neighborhood — one of the most densely populated, immigrant-rich communities west of the Mississippi River — a park families can actually use.

Over the past year, the city has sent outreach teams and overdose-response workers into the park to connect with people struggling with addiction. The Los Angeles Police Department has also increased patrols, work that has helped disrupt what had become an open-air drug market along Alvarado Street on the park’s eastern flank.

The results are visible. The park looks and feels safer than it did a year ago. But it remains a work in progress, and its long-term future is far from settled.

A recent planning report captured that tension well, noting that while opinions vary widely about the park’s current state, nearly everyone agrees on what they want: a clean, well-maintained, safe green space that draws families and feels genuinely alive with activity.

That vision hasn’t fully arrived yet. But the city’s strategy is shifting from short-term intervention toward longer-term redesign, using urban planning to reshape how people experience the park itself.

That approach got its first real trial earlier this month when the city temporarily shut down car traffic on Wilshire Boulevard, the busy roadway that splits the park into northern and southern halves.

Normally, the boulevard acts as a hard barrier. Crossing from one side of the park to the other typically means ducking through pedestrian tunnels that many visitors find dark, unwelcoming and unsafe.

But on the weekend of July 17, cars were kept out, and for a few days, MacArthur Park functioned as a single, unbroken space — much as it did generations ago.

The turnout was strong. An estimated 2,000 people showed up Friday, and nearly double that number returned Saturday. Some came to watch World Cup matches on outdoor screens, others to check out organized activities, and many simply out of curiosity.

The park’s underlying problems didn’t disappear for the occasion. Along Alvarado Street, some visitors still noticed people struggling visibly with addiction, along with scattered litter. But elsewhere, the mood was different: kids kicked around soccer balls, food vendors did brisk business, and families lined up for carnival-style games alongside unhoused residents who joined in the fun.

Making the Wilshire closure permanent would be a significant undertaking, and the idea is still in its early stages. Still, it was the top recommendation to emerge from a recent city planning study, and it’s now headed into an environmental review process that will include extensive community input. So far, feedback on the concept has been largely positive.

Other physical changes are already reshaping the park. Earlier efforts to curb illegal vending — and the drug activity it enabled — included installing chain-link fencing along Alvarado and nearby streets. That helped push out dealers, but the fencing was unattractive and quickly became a magnet for dumped trash. In response, the city swapped the fencing for large, rounded concrete bollards designed to block vending carts without doubling as makeshift trash bins.

Some park visitors welcomed the removal of the fencing but pointed out that dealers simply relocated a few blocks away — a reminder that displacing a problem isn’t the same as solving it.

The next major shift is expected this fall, when the city plans to install a wrought-iron perimeter fence around the park. The goal is to better control access and make it easier to enforce nightly closures.

Not everyone supports the idea. Some Westlake residents see the fence as exclusionary or argue the money would be better spent on housing and addiction treatment. But like the Wilshire closure and the bollards, the fence reflects a broader theory guiding the city’s approach: that reshaping the physical space can help stabilize the social conditions around it.

The intent, city officials say, isn’t to push people out — it’s to draw law-abiding families and neighbors back in.

These challenges mirror struggles playing out in cities across California and the country, made harder at times by federal actions that have complicated local efforts. In MacArthur Park, city officials say progress has occasionally been undercut by the Trump administration’s use of the park as a staging ground for immigration enforcement operations, including scenes of ICE agents in military-style gear moving through the area in front of unsettled residents.

MacArthur Park is not a backdrop for federal enforcement theater. It’s the heart of a crowded immigrant neighborhood where families depend on the space for their children to play and where workers gather to catch a breath after long shifts.

Those residents deserve the same safety, cleanliness and peace of mind afforded to wealthier parts of the city. And the city’s commitment to delivering that is still being tested.

So far, the results are promising — but the work is far from finished.

Original source: CalMatters

The post MacArthur Park Has Grown Safer and Cleaner — Could Closing a Key Boulevard Help Even More? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

ADUs are one of the few bright spots for the state’s housing market at a time of rising construction costs, high interest rates, and continued local resistance to greater housing density. These unassuming units, often basement apartments, backyard cottages, and converted garages, are far more affordable to build than other housing options and have become a politically palatable infill alternative to apartment complexes.

With median construction costs of about $150,000 in California, ADUs cost less than a third of traditional, federally subsidized affordable housing. As a result, the median ADU in the San Francisco Bay Area and Central Coast is affordable (costs less than 30% of income) for a low income family, 31% of ADUs in Los Angeles County are affordable, and large numbers of ADUs are affordable in other regions, as well.

Over the past eight years, ADU construction has skyrocketed. California went from about 1,000 ADU permits in 2016 to 5,000 in 2017 to 25,000 in 2022.

This boom did not come easily. Many local governments have resisted ADUs, fearing they would overcrowd single-family neighborhoods. While some of these concerns are legitimate, the state’s housing crisis has persuaded state lawmakers that cities must allow more housing construction, even in built-out areas — and ADUs are one way to achieve that.

California lawmakers have worked for decades to limit local governments’ authority to block construction of these units. The effort began in 1982 when the legislature prohibited cities from categorically barring ADUs. Local governments responded by placing what a report from the Furman Center at New York University called “cumbersome and unpredictable discretionary  review requirements on applications for ADUs.”

Local resistance prompted the state in 2002 to mandate ministerial (rather than discretionary) local approval of ADU permits. Yet ADU production remained low.

Reforms in 2016 finally made inroads. That year, the legislature adopted two bills, AB 2299 and SB 1069. These required cities to allow ADUs on single-family lots. They also prohibited them from requiring design features such as direct pathways to the street and setbacks for garages converted into ADUs. These laws also eliminated parking requirements for ADUs near transit stops and for ADUs attached to existing houses; prohibited cities from requiring new water, sewer or utility connections for ADUs, or from charging utility fees for ADUs; and required ministerial permitting of ADUs to occur within 120 days.

More state laws followed, as legislators and advocates identified and removed other barriers to ADU construction.

Suddenly, ADU production surged across the state. According to the California Department of  Housing and Community Development, ADUs will meet 3% of the state’s housing needs for the period from 2021-2028.

Yet this growth has been uneven. In a recent study, the Rose Institute of State and Local Government analyzed differences in ADU production in Long Beach, San Diego, Anaheim, Pomona, Ontario, and Corona in light of the state’s assessment of these cities’ housing needs. In  Long Beach, the state’s per capita ADU leader, these units have met 5% of housing needs. By  contrast, ADUs make up only 2.6% in Anaheim. Within the Inland Empire, only 1% of housing needs are met in Ontario, 1.1% in Corona, and 2.2% in Pomona.

The report found that variations in ADU production can result from several factors, including the local housing market. For example, Ontario, like other cities in the Inland Empire, is still developing outward into greenfield sites, potentially reducing the demand for ADUs due to the availability of new single-family homes.

Familiarity with ADUs also matters. Planners in Long Beach, a leading producer of ADUs, describe these units as part of the fabric of their city, and say the knowledge they have gained processing ADU applications helps them approve permits faster than in some other cities. By contrast, other cities have less experience with this form of housing.

Local policies can affect ADU production, as well. Although the state has limited local control over ADUs, standards can still vary on several important dimensions. This is where local governments can most make a difference.

To help meet housing production goals, cities should assess where their regulations may be holding back ADU production and consider loosening standards in those areas. In particular, local lawmakers should look closely at three factors: parking requirements, structural setback requirements, and fees.

Parking requirements can add significant costs to new development, making them infeasible for homeowners without access to large capital flows. Structural setbacks can make larger ADUs geometrically infeasible, limiting the variety of options available to would-be buyers and renters. Finally, fees place high up-front costs on ADU developers, who often are individual homeowners,  further dissuading them from realizing their property’s potential.

Giving homeowners a little more wiggle room in how they build their ADUs could make the difference between catching up to statewide ADU production levels and missing out on a powerful tool to meet housing needs.

The post ADUs can help the Inland Empire meet housing needs appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.