LA could be sitting on billions in property why not use it?

Why is LA trying to raise taxes and fees on residents while it’s sitting on potential billions in valuable property?That’s the question raised by Councilwoman Katy Yaroslavsky, and it’s worth asking.As The California Post reported earlier this week, the city of LA owns about 7,500 properties in town.  The biggest news, opinion and culture shaping California right now.Please provide a valid email.

By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.Never miss a story The city doesn’t even know what any of it is worth.Some of these properties are empty parcels, or parking lots.

But they all have value. Certainly, amid all the political rhetoric about “affordability,” and the housing shortage, it would be interesting to ask what can done with these properties.Taxing real estate transactions — which is what Measure ULA does — clearly doesn’t work. That tax makes “mansions” more expensive.

It also makes commercial property and large apartment buildings more expensive to sell, and harder to build.There are clearly other ways the city can raise revenue — by selling unused assets.Alternatively, the city could rent these properties, or develop them.Yaroslavsky’s idea is to follow New York’s example and create an economic development corporation for LA. That could run into its own set of problems: LA’s bureaucrats haven’t exactly earned a great reputation for business, or for management. Look at the mess San Diego is in.It has leased some public properties for a pittance, for decades. Meanwhile, it sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into real estate deals that went sour.

Not exactly a great precedent.There would have to be proper oversight of anything LA does with its property — and that oversight would have to be politically independent, not controlled by the City Council.One can easily see an LA-run real estate company become a vehicle for political patronage...