Mobile Home Rent Control Measure Passed in L.A. County

Mobile HomesLos Angeles County Supervisors approved a mobile home park rent-control ordinance on Tuesday for unincorporated areas that will limit rental pad inflation to 3 percent a year — the latest sign of high housing costs in L.A.

The Los Angeles Times reported the supervisors approved the Mobilehome Rent Regulation Ordinance by a 3-to-1 vote. It initially provides a 180-day temporary limit on rent increases to maximum of 3 percent a year for annual or short term leases. The ordinance is scheduled to come back before the supervisors next month for another vote to make it permanent.

Supervisor Janice Hahn, who sponsored the rent control measure that will impact about 8,500 mobile home tenants, told Southern California Public Radio that she proposed the ordinance because skyrocketing apartment rents are spilling over to mobile home pad rentals.

Hahn argued that with 100 California communities already having passed rent control laws to protect mobile home tenants, “If we believe in affordable housing, and we believe in keeping these people from being homeless, we should really protect people who are in our mobile home parks in L.A. County.”

Hahn claimed that LA County needs an immediate temporary ordinance to stop mobile home operators from raising rents before a study is conducted to measure if tenants are rent-burdened. But the language of her ordinance states that it can be “extended or replaced by the Board of Supervisors.”

According to a June report from Apartment List, the median rental price for a two-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles was $1,750, and $1,360 for a one-bedroom unit. That was up 3.2 percent, about the same as inflation in the last 12 months, but down from the 6 percent average annual rate since 2015 that had been more than triple the rate of inflation.

Patricia Boerger of the Manufactured Housing Institute told Curbed late last year: “Mobile homes in the 1960s were for young people who were starting out and making their place in the world. Anything after 1976, though, can’t be called a mobile home.”

With the average sales price for a new manufactured home approximately $292,600 less than a site-built home, mobile homes are  a form of low-cost housing for 18 million Americans with an average income is about $28,300 a year and 13 percent on food stamps.

According to the Mobile Home Park Homeowners Allegiance, most residents own their mobile home but rent a pad from a landlord. Allegiance member Kort & Scott Mobile Home Parks, for example, is one of the largest operators in California and has 13 parks in Los Angeles County. K&S monthly pad rents in L.A. County range from a low in Carson of $398 at Laco Mobile Home Park and $420 a month in Carson Gardens Trailer Lodge, to a high of $1,700 a month at the Royal Western Mobile Home Park in Gardena.

Jarryd Gonzales, spokesperson for the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association, told SCPR before the vote that the mobile home park owners do not believe that a crisis exists: “We’re saying take a wait-and-see approach, as opposed to rushing right in and limiting increases on rent, and going on in with a rent control ordinance.”

Gonzales argued that rent control could have unintended negative consequences, including cutting off capital improvements, or potentially causing mobile home park operators to shut down, evict the tenants, and sell their property.

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

The End of the Home-Buying Frenzy

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image14115451You may have seen recent news accounts about how home sales have slowed nationwide. So I got curious: What’s going on in the San Fernando Valley area?

I looked back at the local home-sales stats we publish in the Business Journal, courtesy of Redfin. And in the Valley area, home sales have indeed slowed. In fact, they were down way more here than in the rest of the country, at least in June, which is the latest reporting period.

Nationwide, sales of existing homes in June were down 2.2 percent from June of last year. But they were down 11 percent in the portion of the Valley area that’s in Los Angeles County. In Ventura County, it’s more dramatic: Home sales were down 23 percent.

That’s a huge drop off. But then I thought: Wait a minute! There’s a housing shortage here. The sharp slowdown in sales may result from the fact that there just aren’t many homes to buy.

But that supposition appears to be wrong. Home listings – the number of homes for sale – have increased over the last year. The number of unsold homes was up 1 percent in the Los Angeles County portion of the Valley area (including the San Fernando Valley and such areas as Burbank, Calabasas, Glendale, Santa Clarita and Palmdale).

Again, it’s more dramatic in Ventura County. The inventory of homes for sale in June was 3 percent higher than one year earlier.

In short, home sales were down in June while the inventory of unsold homes went up.

Can we declare that the housing shortage is over? No, but we can say that the shortage is now less severe.

Now that I think about it, this slowdown in house-buying shouldn’t be all that surprising. Mortgage interest rates have been going up, making monthly payments higher.

And have you noticed in recent months the sudden reappearance of for-sale signs? For a couple of years, for-sale signs were scarce. Whenever a home came up for sale, the broker who got the listing quickly showed it to his or her roster of home buyers, and a deal was quickly made before a sign was ever planted in the yard.

But lately, not only is there a proliferation of for-sale signs but even some open houses. Again, I don’t think we can declare the housing shortage dead. However, the buying frenzy – all-cash offers above asking price on the day the house hit the market – appears headed to the hospice.

What about prices? Since home sales drooped in June as the supply expanded, surely that means prices went down, right? Well, ahem, no.

According to our Redfin data, the median price per square foot in June was up 4.2 percent in Ventura County from the previous June, and up 7 percent in the Los Angeles County portion of the Valley area. From the previous month, prices were up in Ventura County and flat in the L.A. portion of the Valley.

The fact that prices are not going down in the face of weakening sales and higher mortgage rates seems to defy reason.

But here’s a thought: All the prices mentioned above are for June. Since then, things may have changed. After all, whenever a slowdown takes hold, the old psychology may linger. It may take a while, but reality eventually sets in and prices inevitably drop. Maybe that just had not happened yet in June.

Here’s a slight bit of anecdotal evidence: A home in my neighborhood went up for sale in April. I walked by it last week. The house still has a for-sale sign in front, although the owners apparently have moved out. According to Zillow, the seller has cut the price three times for a total of 13 percent. The sales sheet describes them as “super motivated,” which I assume means they’ll slice the price some more.

Last year, that house probably would have been snatched up quickly regardless of price. But this year, after more than three months and three price cuts, still no deal.

The housing shortage is not over. In the big picture, there are still too few houses. However, the worst of the house-buying frenzy does appear to be finished or at least abating. The price cutting will surely follow.

Charles Crumpley is editor and publisher of the Business Journal. He can be reached at ccrumpley@sfvbj.com.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

L.A. teachers union schedules strike authorization vote

UTLAThe Los Angeles teachers union announced Friday that it has scheduled a strike-authorization vote for later this month.

A strike would not be automatic, even if a majority of members vote yes. But such a result would give union leaders the authority to call a strike without returning to members for another vote. Having members authorize a strike is a well-established pressure tactic, and once in a while, a strike does occur.

United Teachers Los Angeles scheduled the vote after the state’s Public Employment Relations Board agreed with the union that talks were deadlocked.

Other district employee unions have reached deals that provide for about a 6% raise over three years. L.A. Unified has yet to offer that much to teachers, but that’s clearly where officials want to end up. …

Click here to read the full article from the L.A. Times

The Slower Reality of California High-Speed Rail

High speed rail constructionWhen California voters approved construction of a bullet train in 2008, they had a legal promise that passengers would be able to speed from Los Angeles to San Francisco in two hours and 40 minutes.

But over the next decade, the state rail authority made a series of political and financial compromises that slowed speeds on long stretches of the track.

The authority says it can still meet its trip time commitments, though not by much.

Computer simulations conducted earlier this year by the authority, obtained by The Times under a public records act request, show the bullet train is three minutes and 10 seconds inside the legal mandate. …

Click here to read the full article from the L.A. Times

Jonathan Gold’s Los Angeles

Los Angeles Times food critic Jonathan Gold at the Los Angeles Times Food Bowl Food for Soul at the Ace Hotel Downtown on Friday, May 5, 2017, in Los Angeles. (Photo by Dan Steinberg/Invision for Los Angeles Times Food Bowl/AP Images)

The passing this week of Jonathan Gold, Los Angeles’s Pulitzer Prize-winning restaurant critic, reminded us of why we have lived in Southern California for more than four decades. When we arrived in L.A. in the 1970s—from New York and Montreal, respectively—the city was known largely for glitter and celebrities but little else. The food scene wasn’t much to write home about, though it was better than the awful cuisine in most of the country. A newcomer was likely to be introduced to Tommy’s Burgers, or perhaps a local taco joint with a menu that hadn’t changed in decades. Fine dining was largely of the stargazing variety—Perino’s, Chasen’s, Musso and Frank—which meant generally so-so food but a bettor’s chance to spot a celebrity.

Jonathan Gold helped to change all that. He was from L.A., and he embraced his inner Angeleno while driving through this vast region in his old truck. He was no aesthete in the model of the New York Times’s Craig Claiborne, who favored fancy restaurants serving small portions. Gold embraced L.A. in its vastness, and if there was too much food on the plate—as long as it was good, hell, why not?

Yet Gold was also a discerning critic of haute cuisine. We eventually found many of our favorite splurge restaurants—Providence, the now-closed Campanile, and Angelini Osteria—through his reviews in either the LA Weeklyor the Los Angeles Times, in his book Counter Intelligence, or on KCRW’s Good Foodprogram. These restaurants also reflected L.A.’s growing sophistication as a cultural center. The big difference for Gold was that the food, not the movements of the “in” crowd, assumed the leading role.

Gold made his greatest finds not in Beverly Hills—though he appreciated Nate and Al’s, considering it near the top of the “deli hierarchy”—or on the Sunset Strip, but through his explorations into the long-neglected culinary riches of the not-so-fancy L.A. He found his muse not in dashing restauranteurs backed by big investors but among small, largely ethnic entrepreneurs who, at least initially, made their living feeding their own compatriots. Perhaps his sympathy for these self-starters meant that he didn’t write many negative reviews. Why write about a trek out to Reseda (in west San Fernando Valley) to sample a bad taco or tasteless dumpling? Gold’s knowledge came from trying many places and choosing the best among them. It seemed that he had tried every taco, Thai, and Chinese joint around in search of the perfect barbacoa, noodle, or dumpling. Then he’d tell us all about it in prose that was as much about place as about food. He made the vastness of Los Angeles not just comprehensible, but wonderful.

Gold captured not only a food movement but also a demographic wave. Until the 1960s, greater Los Angeles was an immigration afterthought, a largely white city with marginalized Latino and African-American enclaves. The food reflected the palate of the Midwest, a condition that still prevails in some areas, including near our home in northeastern Orange County. As immigration laws changed, Southern California emerged as a destination, much like New York earlier in the century, for a dazzling array of newcomers. They came from Mexico and Central America, and from the Middle East and Asia. In 1960, Los Angeles County was 80 percent white; in 2014, Caucasians made up barely 30 percent of the population, while Latinos rose to nearly half, and Asians made up nearly 15 percent. This influx turned L.A. into a gourmand’s dream. Gold guided us to restaurants mainly frequented by the natives of their local countries, many located in unglamorous parts of the city, from the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys to gritty streets like Pico Boulevard, on which Gold took it upon himself to visit every restaurant at least once.

Most of our favorite places to eat are places that Gold discovered for us. They include Guelaguetza, an Oaxacan restaurant as far removed from conventional mass-market Mexican food as Burger King is from a Parisian steak tartare with frites. Other favorites include Jitlada, a spicy Southern Thai-oriented place in a rundown part of Hollywood that we love to take our New York relatives to experience. More often, when we lived in the Valley, we visited other Gold discoveries such as our go-to takeout joints, Sri Siam in North Hollywood and Dos Arbolitos in North Hills.

But perhaps nothing attracted us, and Gold, more than the Asian food mecca known as the San Gabriel Valley, in the city’s eastern suburbs. Formerly a largely Taiwanese bastion known as “little Taipei,” the area now has an Asian-American population larger than those in Los Angeles proper, San Francisco, and Chicago, and it tops the Asian-American populations of 42 states. It offers a staggering array of diverse tastes. You’ll find the best noodle houses and dim sum joints, as well as high-end seafood restaurants.

When we moved to Orange County three years ago, what we missed most was Gold’s L.A., that eclectic jumble of strip malls, ethnic enclaves, markets, and restaurants of every description. Many Orange County eateries, as is common in newer areas, have all the originality of scripted sitcoms. Yet Gold helped us even here. Unlike some Angeleno sophisticates, Gold went where his truck and his nose took him. He was the journalistic equivalent of Frank Lloyd Wright, who wrote that “after all is said and done, he—the citizen—is really the city. The city is going wherever he goes.”

Orange County has also become a magnet for immigrants, many seeking single-family homes, better schools, and less-congested freeways. In fact, immigration in Southern California is basically stagnant in the old L.A. core but rising quickly in the outer suburbs. In 1960, Orange County was 90 percent white, but today it’s less than 50 percent. The Latino population has grown to more than 30 percent, while Asians now make up almost 20 percent of the population.

Gold gathered the culinary fruits of remarkable diversity in this once-homogeneous suburb. He spotted the few good European restaurants, like Marche Moderne, but had a particularly keen eye for ethnic-driven successes like Taco Maria, an innovative Mexican-influenced spot in Costa Mesa that ranked in his top ten Southern California eateries.

But Gold glittered most in the obscure places. He was our guide to the great Vietnamese strips—Bolsa, Westminster, and Magnolia— brimming with endless pho and hip Asian joints. There are some slightly more elegant restaurants, like Brodard Chateau, a magnet for fine Vietnamese food. One of the more recent discoveries, now a personal favorite, is Irenia, a Filipino eatery in Santa Ana. Here’s Gold describing its charms:

Dilis (small salty fish) is a powerful food, both metaphorically and in its unmistakable pungency, which can water your eyes from across the room. It is by no means a rarity—dilis is among the most common Filipino snacks—but it takes on a special resonance in this Santa Ana dining room, even when you give up and dump them all onto a bowl of rice. Irenia is a modern restaurant, part of the new Filipino food movement flashing through Southern California, but I suspect that the kitchen cares as much about feeding the appetites of its grandmothers and uncles as it does about making the scene. It is not an accident that Irenia is named for the chef’s grandmother.

Like all the places Gold discovered across Los Angeles, Irenia epitomizes the region’s spirit of enterprise, social mobility, and innovation. In the face of regulatory burdens, high taxes, and real estate costs, the people who run these places represent Southern California’s chances for retaining an entrepreneurial ethos.

We hope that others, including those determined to rein in our often-unsightly sprawl, will recognize that expansiveness is key to Southern California’s unique energy. If they do, they will be following in the footsteps of Jonathan Gold, who discovered it first and had a great time getting there.

California’s Shameful Poverty Crisis

PovertySeven years ago, the Census Bureau began calculating poverty by a new “supplemental” method, responding to criticism that the half-century-old official poverty rate was too simplistic and inaccurate.

The new method quickly gained wide acceptance as much more accurate because it included more forms of income and, most importantly, adjustments for widely varying costs of living.

Almost immediately, California achieved the dubious distinction of having the nation’s highest poverty rate, mostly because of its high costs of living, especially housing. Currently, it’s still No. 1 with a 20.4 percent poverty rate, more than twice that of No. 50 Vermont.

The Public Policy Institute of California and Stanford University’s Center on Poverty followed suit, using a similar methodology to calculate poverty rates for the state’s 58 counties.

Their California Poverty Measure currently tabs the state’s rate at 19.5 percent with Los Angeles County the highest at 24.9 percent and Placer County the lowest at 13.1 percent.

PPIC and Stanford also calculated an additional “near-poverty” rate of 19.2 percent, which implies that nearly 40 percent of Californians are coping with economic distress.

And now we have an even deeper dive into persistent economic despair in the nation’s richest state.

United Ways of California, a coalition of local organizations that raise money for charities, commissioned “Struggling to Stay Afloat,” which delves into poverty not only at the state and county levels, but right down to neighborhoods.

Moreover, the new study breaks down the data not only geographically, but by race or ethnicity, gender, occupation, marital status, education and other factors.

Overall, it found that “1 in 3 households in California, over 3.3 million families – including those with incomes well above the (official) federal poverty level – struggle every month to meet basic needs.”

Not surprisingly, Latinos have the highest poverty of any ethnic group, with 53 percent of households having incomes that fall below the “real cost measure.” The incomes deemed to be adequate vary widely from community to community, depending on local living costs.

All three of these statistical exercises are telling us the same thing – that California has an immense poverty problem rooted more in high living costs than in its family incomes. And housing is the most important cost driver.

The political response to California’s poverty crisis has been tepid, even though Democrats who dominate its politics often denounce economic disparity.

Raising minimum wages and welfare grants and offering a state tax credit to the working poor may have some impacts on the margin. However, the extra incomes they generate are quickly consumed by higher housing costs, plus the higher gas taxes, local sales taxes and energy bills being imposed to deal with other political priorities.

Poverty must be attacked at its roots, such as the ever-worsening shortage of housing, which drives its costs ever-upward, and the lack of education and training for good jobs that employers want to fill, but can’t.

Capitol politicians have sidestepped the politically difficult task of overcoming local opposition to housing construction, or reducing environmental red tape. The state Democratic Party just endorsed a ballot measure that would make local rent control ordinances easier to enact, thus discouraging new housing investment even more.

Nor has the dominant party been willing to buck the union-led education establishment and insist on more accountability for educating poor kids – more than half of the state’s 6 million K-12 students – so they can break their families’ poverty cycles.

Cowardice and tokenism cannot and will not erase California’s shameful status as the nation’s most poverty-ridden state.

This article was originally published by the San Jose Mercury News

The Bank of Los Angeles: A Blank Check for the City?

Photo courtesy of channone, flickr

Photo courtesy of channone, flickr

Last Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council passed a Herb Wesson sponsored motion, without any discussion, that requested “the City Attorney, with the assistance of the Chief Legislative Analyst, to prepare and present the documents necessary to place on the November 2018 Ballot the necessary amendment to Section 104(g) of the City Charter to authorize the City to form a municipal bank.”

The proposed City owned Bank of Los Angeles would “provide financial services to residents, reinvestment in the City to support the development of affordable housing and local infrastructure, and banking solutions for other local businesses that are not currently served by the commercial banking industry.”  There have also been discussions about the Bank serving the unbanked, cash intensive pot industry.

Yet despite all the hype associated with the municipally owned Bank of Los Angeles, the City has not prepared a business plan or even an outline of a plan for the Bank.  Rather, the City is asking us to give the City Council and Mayor Garcetti a blank check to establish the Bank despite a well thought out report by the Chief Legislative Analyst that identified numerous problems.

These limitations include that there is no identified source of funds to capitalize the Bank (estimated to be more than $1 billion), that City funds could not be deposited in the Bank for at least three years, that the Bank would have difficulty providing adequate collateral to support the City banking requirements, that the Bank would have difficulty qualifying for deposit insurance, and that start-up costs would be “exorbitant” with no available sources of cash to cover these losses.

After listening to the February 28 meeting of the Ad Hoc Jobs Committee where the Chief Legislative Analyst’s report was discussed, it was apparent that the members of the City Council have no clue about the banking business, the need for excellent management and strong credit standards, and that loans are not grants and need to be repaid.

Rather, the members of the City Council view the Bank as a source of cash to fund their pet projects and those of their cronies. But loans, both principal and interest, need to be repaid on a timely basis if the Bank is to remain solvent.   Otherwise, the Bank is out of business, the equity capital is wiped out, and the depositors take a hit.

This was certainly the case with the Los Angeles Community Development Bank that was established after the 1992 riots with money from the Federal Government.  But this loan fund that was under the control of the City Council closed its doors in 2004 because too many of the politically connected borrowers failed to meet their obligations.

However, with the Bank of Los Angeles, it is our money, not the Washington’s, that is lost if the Bank tanks.  And it the City takes a hit, it would have an adverse impact on the already poor level of service we receive from the City.  …

Click here to read the full article from City Watch LA

Massive Immigration Protest Takes Over Downtown Los Angeles

Demonstrators flooded downtown Los Angeles on Saturday to protest against the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

Thousands of demonstrators, along with a handful of high-profile celebrities, lawmakers, and activists, participated in the Families Belong Together-Freedom for Immigrants March, demanding border agents reunite separated immigrant children from their parents who illegally crossed the Southern border.

Armed with signs that read, “Children are not criminals,” and “compassion has no border,” demonstrators began protesting outside Los Angeles city hall at 11:00 a.m.

Grammy award-winning singer John Legend and his wife Chrissy Teigen participated at the event and urged demonstrators to do more than protest the Trump administration’s immigration policies on social media.

“You can’t just talk about it or tweet about it. You’ve got to do something,” said Legend.

“I know that opening up Twitter right now feels like it can be a horror show, so much of the news is shocking and maddening and depressing,” the singer added. “I think some of us have a strong temptation to just disengage, but we can’t. We can’t do that. I can’t do that. I have to do something.”

The rally featured multiple speeches from activists from open-borders groups, including Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA).

In her address to rally attendees, CHIRLA’s Melody Klingenfuss introduced herself as “undocumented, unapologetic and unafraid.”

“We will not stop until all the families are judged by the content of their character and not the possession of a legal piece of paper,” Klingenfuss said.

The open-borders activist then led the crowd in a chant against the President —”Trump, where’s your heart!?” they shouted.

Leading California lawmakers, including Sen. Kamala Harris, Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti and Rep. Maxine Waters fired up the crowd with pro-immigration speeches.

“If you are pro-family, you cannot separate families,” Garcetti told demonstrators. “Mr. Trump, do your job. ICE, do your job.” “We’ve got a message for the White House,” the mayor added, “We care, and so should you.” Harris told attendees that today’s protest against the administration’s immigration policies represents “an inflection moment.”

“This is a moment in time that is requiring us to look in a mirror and ask a question, and that question is, ‘Who are we?’ I believe the answer is `We are better than this,’” the 2020 hopeful said.

California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, State Sen. Kevin De Leon, Secretary of State Alex Padilla and members from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Women’s March LA Foundation also participated in the event.

Organizers for the march says an estimated 55,000 people attended the Los Angeles protest.

The Los Angeles rally was one of 700 demonstrations taking place across the county this weekend.

“Other #FamiliesBelongTogether Southern California rally locations include Pasadena, Irvine, Malibu, Laguna Beach, Carlsbad, National City, Ramona, San Diego, Palm Springs, Moreno Valley, Riverside and Temecula,” reports NBC 4.

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

Gov. Jerry Brown signs his final state budget, California’s largest yet

California schools, healthcare and social services programs will see spending increases under the state budget signed Wednesday by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The $201.4-billion plan, which takes effect next week, is the final budget of Brown’s eight-year tenure. It is also the third consecutive blueprint that includes notably higher-than-expected tax revenue, a sizable portion of which lawmakers are diverting into the largest cash reserve in California history.

“This budget is a milestone,” Brown said at an event in Los Angeles. “We’re not trying to tear down, we’re not trying to blame. We’re trying to do something.”

Lawmakers sent Brown the budget last week, and he chose to sign it Wednesday without any line-item vetoes — unusual in comparison to previous governors, but consistent with his recent budget actions. ..

Click here to read the full article from the L.A. Times

What Could go Wrong in Building Tiny Houses for Homeless?

Tent of homeless person on 6th Street Bridge with Los Angeles skyline in the background. California, USA. (Photo By: Education Images/UIG via Getty Images)

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors just voted to go forward with a pilot program to house homeless people in tiny houses in the backyards of single-family homes. And if you pay taxes in L.A. County, you’re going to pay for it.

The program will pay $75,000 to homeowners who agree to have a tiny house constructed on their property, or $50,000 to upgrade an illegal dwelling unit, like a converted garage. The selected homeless person or family will pay rent, covered by low-income vouchers. Tenants would contribute 30 percent of their incomes. Taxpayers, presumably, would make up the difference.

If you ever drove by a homeless encampment and said to yourself, “The government ought to do something,” you probably never thought that what it would do is move the residents of the encampment into a backyard next door to your own house, at your expense.

But that might very well happen.

L.A. County is testing this concept in a pilot program that will cost $550,000.

Here’s how it will work for homeowners: The county will provide a maximum subsidy of $75,000 to build two or three new “accessory dwelling units” or ADUs, sometimes called granny flats. The subsidy will be provided in the form of a loan that will be gradually forgiven, with the principal reduced for every year that the unit is used as homeless housing. After 10 years, the loan will be completely forgiven and the homeowners can evict the homeless tenants and do whatever they wish with the units.

What could possibly go wrong?

Well, for starters, the many families currently living in bootleg housing could find themselves evicted so the owners can take advantage of $50,000 in government loans to legalize the units so they can house somebody else.

That means that this program, if it’s ever scaled up, could vastly increase the homeless population almost overnight.

Something else that could go terribly wrong is the “magnet effect.” That’s when people in other counties and states see the backyard tiny-house option as a great opportunity and move to L.A. County to take advantage of it. That could increase the homeless population even more. Then there’s the obvious problem.

Here’s how Supervisor Sheila Kuehl described the homeless population: “Many, many of them are just regular people like you and me who just lost their job or lost their house and really don’t have other choices.”

That may be, but many, many of them are not regular people. Many, many of them are people with issues that will make them terrible tenants and horrible neighbors.

Suppose the people who are chosen by the county to live in the homeless housing choose to abuse drugs, damage property or become a nuisance to the neighbors or the neighborhood. What’s the plan?

That was probably one of the questions that stalled a plan for backyard homeless housing in Multnomah County, Oregon, where Portland is located. The pilot project was set to build four tiny homes last year, but was delayed by a cluster of concerns over locations, legalities and tax consequences.

It turned out that Portland’s strict rules about how close a house can be to a tree meant that there were fewer available locations than expected.

Then there was difficulty working out legal agreements between the homeowner and the homeless tenants, between the tenants and the property manager and between the property manager and the county.

There was also the question of how to compensate homeowners for the trouble. The county initially planned to make pre-fab tiny houses available for free, but that would have triggered unpleasant tax consequences. So they worked out a plan to sell the houses to the homeowners and offer financing similar to what’s being proposed here. And Oregon property owners can have their $75,000 loan forgiven in just five years, not 10.

The city of Los Angeles is spending a $100,000 grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies to study the feasibility of backyard homeless housing within the city’s boundaries. Maybe this will solve the problem of homelessness in a way that will inspire the world. Or maybe it will be the start of a wave of gated communities with HOA agreements that don’t even allow adding a birdhouse without a two-thirds vote of the board.

olumnist and member of the editorial board of the Southern California News Group, and the author of the book, “How Trump Won.”