Los Angeles, California, Affordable Housing and Labor Standards Initiative, Measure JJJ (November 2016)
| Measure JJJ: Los Angeles Affordable Housing and Labor Standards Initiative |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local zoning, land use and development |
| Related articles |
| Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Los Angeles County, California ballot measures Local housing on the ballot |
| See also |
| Los Angeles, California |
This initiative was called the "Build Better LA" Initiative by supporters.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of enacting an initiative to impose minimum affordable housing requirements, training standards, and labor and wage regulations on development projects requiring zoning changes, including provisions to require a certain percentage of labor come from local workers. |
| A no vote was a vote against enacting an initiative to impose minimum affordable housing requirements, training standards, and labor and wage regulations on development projects requiring zoning changes, including provisions to require a certain percentage of labor come from local workers. |
This election was one of Ballotpedia's top 10 local-level races in 2016.
Click here to read the full list.
Contents
Aftermath
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; allegedly violates certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2017 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jim Luke; Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance | Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure sets an unconstitutional incentive for private contractors to discriminate in hiring construction workers against out-of-state residents. | Defendant argument: The measure underwent a legal analysis by the Los Angeles City Attorney, who did not raise an issue with the constitutionality of the measure. |
On March 16, 2017, a federal lawsuit was filed against Measure JJJ. The lawsuit was filed by a construction worker from Illinois named Jim Luke and the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. The lawsuit claims that the provision related to hiring local workers violates the constitution by setting "an unconstitutional incentive for private contractors to discriminate in hiring construction workers against out-of-state residents.” The plaintiffs argued that the provisions specifically violates the Commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the equal protection rights for workers under the 14th Amendment.[1][2]
Election results
| Measure JJJ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 736,770 | 64.8% | ||
| No | 400,154 | 35.2% | ||
- Election results from Los Angeles County Elections Office
Initiative design
The key provisions of Measure JJJ were as follows:[3]
- All development projects that include 10 or more residential units and require changes to the General Plan or other zoning and construction rules would be required to make a percentage of the units affordable to low-income and working residents, or pay a fee to fund affordable housing and enforce laws that protect renters.
- Developers of any such residential projects would have to hire contractors who:
- are licensed according to city and state law;
- guarantee to offer at least 30 percent of work-hours to city residents, with 10 percent coming from those living within five miles of the project;
- pay standard wages for the area; and
- employ members of apprenticeship training programs and workers with real-world experience.
- No changes to the local plans for certain districts could be made without a guarantee that the changes would not “reduce the capacity for creation and preservation of affordable housing and access to local jobs.”
- Developers would be required to make as much as 20 percent of the units in a project affordable for low-income and working renters. That number can be as high as 40 percent for homes that are for sale.
- Moreover, projects planned around public transit within a half of a mile from significant public transit stops would be encouraged through an incentive program that would apply only to projects that include affordable housing and require contractors to comply with the restrictions laid out in the second bullet point of the list above.
- No tax dollars will be used.
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[4]
| “ |
Shall an ordinance: 1) requiring that certain residential development projects provide for affordable housing and comply with prevailing wage, local hiring and other labor standards; 2) requiring the City to assess the impacts of community plan changes on affordable housing and local jobs; 3) creating an affordable housing incentive program for developments near major transit stops; and 4) making other changes; be adopted?[5] |
” |
Ballot summary
The following summary of Measure JJJ was provided by the city elections office:[4]
| “ |
THE SITUATION: Currently, the City of Los Angeles does not require proposed General Plan amendments or zoning changes to incorporate affordable housing or meet training, local hiring, and prevailing wage requirements. THE PROPOSAL: This citizen-sponsored ballot initiative would:
A YES VOTE MEANS: You want to amend City law to add affordable housing standards and training, local hiring, and prevailing wage requirements for certain residential projects seeking General Plan amendments or zoning changes. A NO VOTE MEANS: You do not want to amend City law to add affordable housing standards and training, local hiring, and prevailing wage requirements for certain residential projects seeking General Plan amendments or zoning changes.[5] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Sharon M. Tso, Chief Legislative Analyst:
| “ |
This citizen-sponsored ballot initiative, if approved, will amend City law to add affordable housing standards and training, local hiring, and specific wage requirements for certain residential projects of 10 or more units seeking General Plan amendments or zoning changes. The proposed ordinance would limit the City’s ability to deny General Plan amendments for projects that satisfy all of the following: • Are located near transit stops or meet other geographic requirements, or are entirely comprised of affordable housing units; • Meet training, local hiring, and certain wage requirements; and • Provide a certain percentage of affordable housing or otherwise comply with specified affordable housing requirements. The percentage and type of affordable units required for each housing project will vary depending on the amendment or change approved for that project. The affordable housing requirements may also be satisfied through off-site construction of affordable housing, off-site acquisition of affordable housing, or fees. Under the affordable housing provisions of the measure, all affordable housing units are subject to an affordability commitment acceptable to the City. Affordable rental housing units, created or acquired, must guarantee continuing affordability for a minimum term of 55 years. The labor-related provisions of this initiative would require a good-faith effort that at least 30 percent of all construction worker hours in a project be performed by permanent residents of the City, of which at least 10 percent must be performed by “Transitional Workers” facing socioeconomic obstacles or other barriers to employment and whose primary residence is within a five mile radius of the project site; payment of certain wages; and licensing, certifications, and apprenticeship requirements. The measure also proposes to limit the City’s ability to reduce the number of community plans or make changes to their geographical boundaries, land uses or other material changes until: • The Planning Department completes a comprehensive assessment to ensure that the proposed changes do not reduce the capacity for creation and preservation of affordable housing and access to local jobs; or undermine any State or other affordable housing incentive program. • The Planning Commission considers the plan amendment accompanied by the required comprehensive assessment and makes a recommendation to accept or reject the proposed amendment, and Council votes to either accept or reject the amendment. This initiative would change the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund requirements making housing projects receiving Affordable Housing Trust Fund funding subject to labor-related provisions, except for affordable housing developments of 25 units or less. All construction projects funded by the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, however, would be subject to prevailing wage rate requirements, as determined by the California Department of Industrial Relations. This measure also creates an affordable housing incentive program with increased density and reduced parking requirements in areas within a one-half mile radius around a major transit stop. This measure would become effective with a majority vote. [5] |
” |
| —Sharon M. Tso, Chief Legislative Analyst[4] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
"Build Better LA" vs. "Neighborhood Integrity"
Two Los Angeles initiatives with conflicting provisions related to development and housing were filed in late 2015 and early 2016, respectively. Proponents of both had until mid-June 2016 to collect enough signatures to put the measures on the November 2016 ballot. The Coalition to Preserve L.A. (CPLA), which was behind the Measure S (known as the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative), were cleared to begin circulating its initiative on January 4, 2016. The group announced, however, that it would target the election on March 7, 2017, instead of the November 2016 election, citing the fact that the November 2016 ballot was crowded with federal and state legislative races and 17 statewide ballot measures.
Measure JJJ was written to leave the project approval system intact, but to impose minimum affordable housing requirements, training standards, and labor and wage regulations on development projects. Measure S was designed to restrict development projects for a temporary period and change the project approval process to prevent project-specific changes to the General Plan of the city. Supporters of Measure S said it would help eliminate corruption in the city planning process and prevent large developers from using political contributions to motivate city officials to change zoning rules to allow large, incongruous development projects. Provisions included a moratorium on density-increasing construction requiring zoning code changes for up to two years. A coalition of labor unions, transit advocates, and affordable housing proponents filed the other measure. This Build Better LA initiative was filed with city elections officials on February 17, 2016, and was successfully certified for the November 2016 ballot as Measure JJJ. It was approved.[6]
Labor and business interests
Many business interests and labor advocacy groups were united by opposition to the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative when it was first proposed. Opponents included the Valley Industry and Commerce Association and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. Business and labor interests were divided, however, by the competing initiative, Measure JJJ. In fact, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor sponsored the initiative. Valley Industry and Commerce Association President Stuart Waldman said, "The labor initiative is just going to kill small and mid-sized apartment projects in the city of Los Angeles. They're just not going to get built."[7]
Mott Smith, a real estate developer, summed up the situation by saying, "It puts business in a tough spot because labor is probably the most important ally in fighting the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. But if you are pro-housing production … you probably have to oppose this [union measure] too, which would alienate labor."[7]
Support
Supporters
The Campaign for a Better L.A. was the group behind this initiative. A Yes on JJJ campaign was created to urge voters to approve the initiative.[8][9]
The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor backed this initiative effort.[7]
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[4]
- Alton Wilkerson, Electrician
- Angella Gaines, Renter
- Rusty Hicks, Veteran
- Josefina Castillo, First-time Homebuyer
- Ronald Miller, Plumber
Arguments in favor
Supporters argued that this initiative would help provide jobs and much-needed affordable housing.[8]
The following is a statement posted on the Campaign for a Better L.A. website:
| “ |
You can’t make it in LA when half your paycheck goes to rent. Los Angeles has the highest percentage of renters in the nation—and many pay more than 50 percent of their income towards rent. We live in the least affordable city in America and most of us are in danger of being priced out of our neighborhoods (UCLA, Harvard). On average, you need to make $88,000 a year to afford a two-bedroom apartment in LA. Median income is less than $28,000 a year (UCLA). LA has the largest homeless population in the nation. Nearly 26,000 Angelenos sleep on the streets, in alleys and under freeway overpasses. LA is in desperate need of a solution. SCANPH estimates that we need 500,000 affordable housing units to accommodate the working poor. Problem is, the city has a budget for only 500 units per year. This November, let’s work together to Build Better LA.[5] |
” |
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[4]
| “ |
Yes on Proposition JJJ - Affordable housing built by Angelenos who need jobs the most. Proposition JJJ applies to developers who ask the City for special planning or zoning changes. If a developer wants planning or zoning changes, then 30% of the construction workers must be from local communities who need jobs the most, including veterans. If a developer wants planning or zoning changes for new apartments, then up to 20% of the apartments must have rents people with ordinary incomes can afford. If a developer wants planning or zoning changes for new homes to sell, then up to 40% of those homes must be priced for people with ordinary incomes. If the new affordable housing is more practical in another area, then the developer will pay into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the construction. Proposition JJJ produces more affordable housing without relying on taxpayer funding. Too many hardworking Angelenos can no longer find a home they can afford to buy or rent. UCLA estimates that 300,000 working families can’t afford Los Angeles’ skyrocketing housing prices. There are few homes priced below $600,000. Rent for a new apartment has risen to nearly $3,000 per month - $36,000 a year. Angelenos who drive the trucks, cook the food, clean the offices and hotels, care for the elderly, stock the shelves, provide the day care, build and repair almost everything else are being pushed farther and farther away from their jobs adding more and more traffic throughout the city. Proposition JJJ will build more housing near transit stops to reduce congestion. Proposition JJJ won’t solve every problem. But if Proposition JJJ had been enacted three years ago, Los Angeles would have 5,522 additional new homes that people could afford today and 11,656 local residents would have had the jobs to build them. Veterans, renters, first-time homebuyers, and out-of-work construction workers asked Angelenos to sign Proposition JJJ - and 100,000 said “Yes.” Please join us in voting Yes on Propostion JJJ. [5] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
- Valley Industry and Commerce Association[7]
- The Coalition to Preserve LA opposes Measure JJJ and sponsored an initiative with conflicting provisions, targeting the March 2017 election ballot.[10]
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[4]
- Tim Piasky, Co-Chair, Coalition for Jobs and Attainable Housing
- Gary Toebben, President & CEO, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
- Beverly A. Kenworthy, Vice President, California Apartment Association Los Angeles
- Stuart Waldman, President, Valley Industry & Commerce Association
- Carol Schatz, President & CEO, Central City Association of Los Angeles
- Mike Balsamo, CEO, Building Industry Association of Southern California
Arguments against
Opponents argued that the initiative would prevent development that is key to the city's economy and to filling housing needs, thereby hurting the job market, decreasing the amount of affordable housing in the city, and inhibiting the local economy.[7]
Others argued that it contained provisions that would allow large development companies to build expensive, dense housing affordable only by the wealthy that would increase traffic congestion and over-develop the city even further.[10]
From the perspective of business interests, opponents argued that Measure JJJ would prevent lots of apartment construction projects from ever being built, hurting the economy and the affordable housing availability in the city. Stuart Waldman, president of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, said, "The labor initiative [Measure JJJ] is just going to kill small and mid-sized apartment projects in the city of Los Angeles. They're just not going to get built."[7]
From another opposing perspective, the Coalition to Preserve LA posted the following argument on its website:[10]
| “ |
Measure JJJ on the ballot falsely claims to bring “affordable housing” and jobs to L.A. residents. In fact, JJJ is a twisted roadmap for unprecedented overdevelopment, opening the door to 500 to 1,000 skyscrapers and sprawling $3,500+ complexes in neighborhoods. It's 23 pages of dense gibberish contain 5 fatal loopholes that void every promise by JJJ about “affordable housing” and local-hire jobs.[5] |
” |
The organization listed the following provisions as loopholes:[10]
- A provision allowing the city council to waive affordable housing minimum requirements in cases where a developer's profit margin is low.
- A provision allowing a fee to be paid by developers and earmarked for affordable housing in lieu of actually building affordable housing.
- A provision allowing further deferment of the required fee.
- A provisions allowing the city to spend money deposited into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for other housing-related purposes.
- The provision requiring a "good-faith effort" to hire local labor, rather than requiring local labor through a binding law with specific penalties.
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[4]
| “ |
RIGHT PROBLEM, WRONG SOLUTION: VOTE NO ON JJJ! Measure JJJ is a deeply flawed initiative that deserves a NO vote. Measure JJJ does not produce new jobs and will not increase the availability, or affordability, of housing. In fact, studies by University of California, Berkeley, the California Institute for County Government, and Habitat for Humanity North Los Angeles estimate that the requirements of Measure JJJ could add as much as 23-30% to the cost of constructing new housing. Habitat for Humanity North Los Angeles has noted that this will significantly impair its ability to build affordable homes. Measure JJJ will: • Drive up rental costs • Make homes more unaffordable for first-time buyers • Add delays and red tape to the construction of needed housing • Increase construction costs Specifically, Measure JJJ’s far-reaching and poorly-defined regulations will increase the cost of construction for new housing. Additional construction cost will be felt most by those that can least afford it - small firms and non-profit organizations that build homes for seniors, veterans, and lower-income families and homeless individuals. Measure JJJ’s regulatory barriers are also counter-productive.To build more affordable housing and create new jobs, we need to build sustainably. This misguided initiative will make it more difficult and costly to build. Without increasing our housing supply to meet demands, rents will continue to rise, homeownership will remain out of reach and there will be limited opportunities for job creation in communities most in need. We all agree more needs to be done to address our housing problem in Los Angeles. Measure JJJ is the wrong approach and will make it harder to provide housing options for hard-working, lower-income families and homeless individuals. That is why community-based organizations, businesses, homeless advocates, non-profit groups, housing advocates and tenant rights groups oppose Measure JJJ. VOTE NO on Measure JJJ.[5] |
” |
Path to the ballot
- Petitioners filed this initiative with election officials on February 17, 2016.[11]
- To qualify their measure for the November 2016 ballot, petitioners needed to gather 61,486 valid signatures, which is 15 percent of the votes cast for mayor in the preceding mayoral election.
- Initiative filings in Los Angeles remain active for two years after they are cleared for circulation. All signatures used to qualify the measure for the ballot must be collected within a 120-day time span, however.
- To reach the November 2016 ballot, signatures needed to be submitted by mid-June 2016.
- Petitioners collected and submitted close to 100,000 valid signatures by the deadline, and the city council voted to put the initiative on the ballot.[12]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Los Angeles affordable housing and labor standards Proposition JJJ. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Support
Opposition
Related measures
Housing in 2016 and 2017
Measures will be listed here once they are proposed in other local government jurisdictions.
Development in 2016 and 2017
Measures will be listed here once they are proposed in other local government jurisdictions.
Footnotes
- ↑ Courthouse News Service, "LA Housing Ballot Measure Called Unconstitutional," March 20, 2017
- ↑ United States District Court Central District of California, "Jim Luke and Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance v. City of Los Angeles," accessed May 1, 2017
- ↑ Alston & Bird, "The Build Better LA Initiative—More Affordable Housing and Labor Agreements?" February 23, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Los Angeles City Clerk, "November 8, 2016, Special Election Voter Information Pamphlet," accessed October 29, 2016
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Neighborhood Integrity Initiative Communications Director, "NEIGHBORHOOD BALLOT PLAN'S SUPPORTERS AIM FOR MARCH 2017 CITY ELECTION," March 15, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Los Angeles Times, "Labor and business groups in L.A. are united against one housing measure — and divided by another," February 22, 2016
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Build Better LA, "Home," accessed February 24, 2016
- ↑ Yes on JJJ, "Home," accessed October 26, 2016
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Coalition to Preserve LA, "Measure JJJ, A Shameless Bait and Switch, Will Swamp Los Angeles with Traffic, Concrete and Luxury Skyscrapers," October 26, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles City Clerk, "Ordinance Initiatives," accessed February 24, 2016
- ↑ The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, "City Council Approves Affordable Housing and Labor Standards Ballot Measure’s Placement on November Ballot," June 21, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
California elections in 2020 | Voting in California | What's on my ballot? | Elections calendar | Election governance | Ballot access for candidates | Ballot access for parties | Campaign finance requirements | Redistricting |
| Ballot measures |
List of California ballot measures | Local measures | Ballot measure laws | Campaign finance requirements |
| Government |
Who represents me? | Congressional delegation | State executives | State legislature | State Senate | House of Representatives | 2020 legislative session | Largest counties | Largest cities | School districts in California | State constitution |
| Judiciary |
Courts in California | Judicial Selection | Federal courts | Supreme Court | Court of Appeals | Superior Courts |
| Public Policy |
Budget and finances | Energy | Environment | Financial regulation | Healthcare | Immigration | Public education | Public pensions | Taxes |
