Housing on Merit – Stakeholder Mapping of Affordable Housing in Los Angeles County

Introduction

Affordable housing remains one of Los Angeles County’s most pressing challenges. With skyrocketing rents, stagnant wages, and a severe shortage of available units, low- and middle-income residents face increasing barriers to stable housing. “Housing on Merit“ examines the complex ecosystem of stakeholders involved in affordable housing development, identifying key players, their roles, conflicts, and opportunities for collaboration.

The report maps out the relationships between government agencies, developers, nonprofits, financial institutions, advocacy groups, and residents—all of whom influence how affordable housing gets built (or doesn’t). By understanding these dynamics, policymakers, and advocates can better navigate obstacles and accelerate equitable housing solutions.

Key Stakeholders in Affordable Housing Development

1. Government Agencies (Public Sector)

Public entities shape housing policy, allocate funding, and regulate development. Key players include:

• Federal Government (HUD, IRS): Provides tax credits (LIHTC), grants, and vouchers (Section 8).

• State of California (HCD, Tax Credit Allocation Committee): Administers funding streams like Proposition 1 and state tax credits.

• Los Angeles County & Cities (LAHD, HCIDLA): Oversee zoning, permitting, and local subsidies.

• Metro & Regional Agencies (SCAG): Influence long-term housing plans and transportation-linked development.

Challenges: Bureaucratic delays, underfunding, and competing priorities slow production.

2. Developers & Builders (Private Sector)

• For-Profit Developers: Rely on tax credits and subsidies to make projects financially viable.

• Nonprofit Developers (e.g., Mercy Housing, Abode Communities): Focus on long-term affordability and community needs.

• Small-Scale & “Mom-and-Pop” Landlords: Provide naturally affordable units but face rising costs.

Challenges: High construction costs, NIMBY opposition, and financing gaps hinder projects.

3. Financial Institutions & Investors

• Banks & Lenders: Provide construction loans but often perceive affordable housing as high-risk.

• Investors (e.g., in LIHTC): Seek returns through tax credits, sometimes prioritizing profits over community impact.

• Philanthropic Funders: Fill gaps with grants but lack scale.

Challenges: Private capital often favors high-return market-rate projects.

4. Advocacy & Community Groups

• Tenant Rights Organizations (e.g., LA Tenants Union): Fight displacement and push for stronger tenant protections.

• Housing Justice Coalitions: Advocate for policies like rent control and inclusionary zoning.

• NIMBY Groups: Often resist high-density developments due to fears of traffic or “neighborhood character” changes.

Challenges: Balancing growth with community concerns remains contentious.

5. Residents & Future Tenants

• Low-Income Renters: Face long waitlists for subsidized units.

• Middle-income workers (Teachers, Nurses, etc.): Struggle with “missing middle” housing.

• Unhoused Populations: Need permanent supportive housing but face systemic barriers.

Challenges: Lack of political power and representation in decision-making.

Barriers to Affordable Housing Development

1. Funding Shortfalls & Fragmented Financing

Affordable housing relies on layered funding (tax credits, bonds, grants), making projects complex and slow to secure. Gaps persist, especially for extremely low-income units.

2. Land Costs & Zoning Restrictions

High land prices in desirable areas push development to cheaper, less accessible locations. Single-family zoning limits density, reducing potential units.

3. Community Opposition (NIMBYism)

Local resistance—often rooted in fears of congestion or lowered property values—delays or blocks projects.

4. Construction & Labor Costs

Soaring material expenses and skilled labor shortages drive up per-unit costs, making projects harder to finance.

5. Regulatory Delays

Lengthy permitting and environmental reviews add years to development timelines.

Opportunities for Improvement

1. Streamlining Approvals & Reducing Red Tape

• Expedited Permitting: Fast-tracking affordable projects can cut costs.

• State Preemption: Laws like SB 35 override local barriers to increase density.

2. Expanding Funding & Innovative Financing

• Social Housing Models: Publicly developed mixed-income housing could reduce reliance on private capital.

• Community Land Trusts (CLTs): Preserve long-term affordability by removing land from speculative markets.

3. Strengthening Tenant Protections

• Just Cause Eviction Laws: Prevent displacement of vulnerable renters.

• Rent Stabilization: Caps on rent hikes protect affordability.

4. Community Engagement & Equitable Planning

• Inclusive Decision-Making: Residents should have a voice in development plans.

• Transparent Processes: Clear communication can reduce NIMBY pushback.

5. Partnerships Between Sectors

• Public-Private Collaborations: Joint ventures can pool resources and expertise.

• Nonprofit-Developer Alliances: Mission-driven partnerships prioritize affordability over profits.

Conclusion

Affordable housing in LA County is a solvable crisis, but it requires coordinated action across sectors. By mapping stakeholders, this report highlights where conflicts arise—and where alliances can form. Key steps forward include:

• Increasing public investment to close funding gaps.

• Reforming zoning laws will allow for more density near transit and jobs.

• Engaging communities early to align projects with local needs.

Ultimately, housing should be treated as a right, not a commodity. With political will and collaborative effort, LA County can shift from scarcity to stability, ensuring all residents have access to homes they can afford.

Also Read: The Possibilities of a Housing First Paradigm Shift in Hungary