Note: I wrote this primer on zoning in response to pushback to proposals that would allow more people to live in Venice. This was originally prepared as part of my work with Inner City Law Center advocating for more affordable housing and sent out to my personal email list.

Recently, the East Venice Neighborhood Association sent an email to the neighborhood raising alarm about proposed zoning changes coming out of the Venice Community Plan update.

Zoning regulations are the set of laws that determine what can be built and who gets to live in a neighborhood. Changes to zoning laws affecting Venice will make it legal to build more homes here. And this will likely result in changes to the neighborhood’s looks and feels. Change is uncomfortable, and concerns about change are worth taking seriously.

We wanted to offer a hopeful vision of looking at zoning reform. New laws and the accompanying changes to the neighborhood are not something that needs to be endured! Instead, they are an opportunity to make this community a walkable, friendly community where our neighbors can afford to live.

Below are five common concerns people raise when it comes to zoning, along with some context that might shift how you see new housing.

CONCERN #1: THE PROPOSED ZONING WILL CHANGE THE LOW-DENSITY CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

The CHIP zoning plan allows midrise buildings within a block of Venice Blvd along Penmar Ave and Walnut Ave, and 8-10 story apartment homes along Venice Blvd itself (per the Draft General Land Use Map). Some people are concerned that allowing apartments to be built on the proposed blocks will be detrimental to the low-slung, beach bungalow character of the neighborhood.

However, the programs on the table are targeted at the commercial corridors of Venice and Lincoln. While the number of stories permitted in the zoning changes may seem high, the blocks the changes encompass are already dense, walkable areas adjacent to transit, bike infrastructure, and local businesses.

It is understandable to be skeptical of new zoning laws and the changes they may bring to the neighborhood. Construction may be disruptive. We may feel nostalgia for how the neighborhood used to look. But saying “no” to new homes isn’t neutral.

The alternative to more homes on the corridors isn’t that nothing will change. If more housing isn’t built, we’ll continue experiencing the change we’re already living through. Teachers, service workers, and longtime renters are priced out each year. The neighborhood becomes devoid of everybody except the few people who were able to purchase property when it was still affordable.

The physical changes to the neighborhood aren’t something that needs to be endured. Permitting a few more stories on a boulevard is a much smaller cost than losing the people who make this neighborhood a vibrant, diverse community.

The character of the neighborhood isn’t the buildings themselves; it’s who’s inside them.

CONCERN #2: NEW BUILDINGS WILL BE APPROVED MINISTERIALLY, WITHOUT ANY COMMUNITY OUTREACH.

Some neighbors feel like they will not have a voice in the planning process. A handful of well-resourced objectors with ample free time have taken advantage of discretionary procedures to stop more homes from being built. Participants in local planning and zoning meetings skew wealthier, whiter, and older than the general population.

More often than not, young families, students, and people with multiple jobs do not have the time or capacity to attend meetings where the benefits seem more abstract. Some may not even live in the neighborhood anymore, forced out by rising prices. Yet these people’s voices matter all the same.

A project-by-project discretionary process is unfair to the people who bear the burden of a rising cost of living. Public input matters most upstream, in democratically electing public officials to make choices on behalf of the community.

CONCERN #3: THIS IS A GIVEAWAY TO GIANT CORPORATE DEVELOPERS, AND THE BUILDINGS WILL SIT EMPTY.

The instinct to distrust large corporations is fair. But those corporations didn’t invent the laws of supply and demand that affect the housing market. They benefit from the status quo by exploiting scarcity for economic gain. If more housing isn’t built, corporations will buy and renovate single-family homes, reselling them at higher prices or converting them into short-term rentals.

The way to level the playing field against corporate landlords isn’t to stop housing from getting built. It’s to build more of it. Building more homes of all kinds lowers rents, and by restricting housing supply Los Angeles has choked renters out of the city.

Tenants shouldn’t have to compete with each other for scarce housing; landlords should have to compete for scarce tenants by lowering prices.

Other cities that have built more housing across all income levels have seen decreases in the cost of housing, particularly for the oldest, most affordable units. Just as the most at-risk tenants are those most harmed by a high cost of living, so too do they benefit from the effects of building more housing. Building “missing middle” housing in higher-resource neighborhoods eases displacement pressure on renters in communities experiencing gentrification and lowers the cost of living for all.

CONCERN #4: AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES ARE JUST A LOOPHOLE FOR DEVELOPERS TO BUILD LUXURY HOUSING.

A variety of local and state laws create incentives or eliminate barriers to building more housing. At the state level, the State Density Bonus Law allows builders to add more density in exchange for adding affordable homes to a project. ADU laws like SB9 expand the rights of homeowners to build ADUs on their property. And SB79 eliminates prohibitions on apartment homes within a half mile of qualifying rail and bus rapid transit stops.

At the local level, the Citywide Housing Incentive Program, or CHIP, functions similarly to state density incentives by offering a “menu” of options developers may use to build more homes. For example, a developer who adds affordable housing might be eligible for ministerial approval of a project that adds density to a neighborhood beyond base zoning.

Together, the current framework of state and local housing laws aims to make it easier to build more homes and lower the cost of living. By legalizing housing and incentivizing affordable home construction, density incentives allow us to build walkable, mixed-income neighborhoods. These tools place affordable housing near bike infrastructure, public transit, and community amenities. At the same time, new laws expand the ability of property owners to add value to their land by building more homes.

A law that allows the construction of midrise apartment buildings near bike infrastructure and public transit will allow developers to build the housing and profit from it. But there will be other effects: people will be able to live in dense, walkable neighborhoods for lower cost than a million-dollar single-family home. Transit ridership will increase. There will be more foot traffic to local businesses. People will be more likely to be able to live near where they work. FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, WE HAVE TO LEGALIZE HOUSING.

CONCERN #5: TRAFFIC WILL INCREASE AND THERE WILL BE LESS PARKING FOR RESIDENTS.

Concerns about increased traffic are legitimate and valid. This is precisely why zoning efforts in Los Angeles place housing capacity around bike infrastructure and public transit. Over half of all trips in Los Angeles are less than three miles. If we provide opportunities for people to live near bike and transit infrastructure, more people will feel safe and empowered to make short trips without a car. Increasing zoning capacity near infrastructure aims to chip away at our city’s car dependence while freeing up road space for those who actually need to drive.

We didn’t create the traffic we currently have by building new housing. In fact, the opposite is true. Some parts of Los Angeles, like the Westside, are rich in jobs but don’t build enough housing to let people afford to live close to where they work. This means that people must drive here for their jobs, creating more traffic and taking up more parking spots.

Predictable as the tide, there’s a surge of traffic to the Westside in the morning and an outflow each afternoon. By restricting housing on the Westside, we’ve actually created more traffic!

The blocks affected by the zoning changes are adjacent to frequent bus service along Venice and Lincoln Blvds, served by the Metro 33 and the Big Blue Bus 3 respectively. This neighborhood is a 10-minute bike ride from the beach, and a straight shot along the protected Venice Blvd bike lane to Palms and Culver City. It’s true that not everybody might want to ride a bicycle or use transit. But building housing proximate to quality infrastructure makes it viable to get around without a car for those who choose to do so.

CONCLUSION

None of this means the concerns people have are silly, or that the changes ahead won’t be an adjustment. Change rarely feels comfortable in the moment. But the neighborhood we’re trying to protect isn’t made of buildings, it’s made of the people who can afford to live here.

WHAT IS THE FUTURE WE WANT TO BUILD? Our choice is between a Venice that has room for teachers, service workers, and longtime renters, or one that slowly empties out for whoever got here first. We hope you’ll join us on the 23rd to help make the case for the former.

LEARN MORE

If you want to dig into the research behind housing supply, zoning, and affordability, here are some nonpartisan academic sources:

- Terner Center for Housing Innovation (UC Berkeley) — research on housing supply, affordability, and California land-use policy

https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/

- UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies — LA-focused research on housing and transportation policy

https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/

- Urban Institute Housing Finance Policy Center — national data and analysis on housing finance and supply

https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/housing-finance-policy-center

- Pew Charitable Trusts Housing Policy Initiative — nonpartisan research on how zoning and land-use rules affect housing costs

https://www.pew.org/en/projects/housing-policy-initiative

Note: this was my final project for my Housing Law and Policy class in law school. The political landscape has shifted significantly since this was written, but I wanted to share regardless. Measure ULA, a transfer tax on the sale of high-value property, presents a fascinating challenge for the city of Los Angeles as it struggles to address its housing shortage.

Thirty minutes before City Hall opened for the day, the line outside already stretched down the block. It was Tuesday, January 27th, 2026 and supporters of Measure ULA – LA’s landmark “mansion tax” on the sale of property for more than $5 million – had gathered en masse to protest any proposed exemptions to the tax. They clutched signs on colored paper bearing slogans like Measure ULA is Working and The People > Billionaire Landlords.

Measure ULA had just topped over $1 billion dollars in revenue for tenant defense, homelessness prevention, and the construction of affordable housing, a benchmark boosters tout as the “People’s Billion”. However, ULA doesn’t only tax mansions. It also taxes multifamily homes and commercial properties, which studies have shown is leading to a decline in property tax revenue and affordable housing construction.

That’s what CD4 Councilwoman Nithya Raman argued before the City Council in the tense meeting that followed. Her proposed changes included a fifteen-year exemption from ULA for newly constructed multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use development, as well as a temporary exemption for fire-impacted properties. “A policy that unintentionally stalls housing production ultimately undermines the very goals voters asked us to achieve,” said Raman in an accompanying statement.(1)

Backlash was immediate. Cynthia Strathmann, Executive Director of SAJE, a ULA coalition partner, accused Raman of “buying what real estate interests are selling.”(2) Joe Donlin, director of the United to House LA, the coalition of labor unions, nonprofits, and developers that led ULA’s passage, described Raman’s effort as “irresponsible”.(3) “Why would we give ‘The People’s Billion’ to the billionaires who already have so much?” Donlin lamented.(3)

But a review of the literature and political context supports the conclusion that Measure ULA raises substantial revenue but unintentionally suppresses multifamily housing production, undermining its own affordable housing goals. This tradeoff is being downplayed out of political expediency rather than substantively addressed, which harms people who desperately need affordable housing and leaves ULA and other local tax initiatives vulnerable to the machinations of organized anti-tax activists. Implementing evidence-based reforms to ULA would undercut challenges by fiscal conservatives and encourage the development of housing – particularly affordable housing – that Los Angeles desperately needs to address the housing shortage.

The Billion Dollar Question

Measure ULA was launched as a coalition effort spearheaded by Denny Zane of MoveLA(4), a community organization with a history of rallying coalitions to pass ballot measures. The need for a permanent revenue stream to address increasing homelessness was becoming more pressing each year. So ULA sought to address the issue by taxing the sale of high-value property: 4 percent from properties sold for more than $5 million and 5.5 percent over $10 million. Approximately 92 percent of the revenue was directed to supporting affordable housing initiatives, with the remainder going to administrative costs.(5)

In 2016, Los Angeles voters passed Proposition HHH, a $1.2 billion bond measure intended to finance up to 10,000 units of permanent supportive housing. Proposition HHH was a one-time investment in the construction of affordable housing, with a set expiration date. It also proved ineffective at solving the worsening housing crisis: by the time ULA was being drafted per-unit costs had ballooned from an initial estimate of roughly $350,000 up to nearly $600,000, and projects were taking between three and six years to complete.(6) By contrast, ULA was designed to establish a permanent, recurring revenue stream to fund housing and tenant protection services.

Measure ULA’s language was drafted by a broad coalition of labor unions, tenant rights groups, nonprofit housing developers, homeless service providers, and faith-based organizations convened under the banner of a new organization: United to House LA.(7) The coalition gathered over 98,000 signatures, well above the 61,076 required to place Measure ULA on the ballot.(8)

Opposition was fierce. The real estate industry coalesced under the deceptively-named opposition committee Angelenos Against Higher Property Taxes to spend approximately $7.4 million to defeat the measure.(9) Major donors included the California Business Roundtable Issues PAC, Douglas Emmett Inc., and Westfield Properties. Real estate interests launched a marketing onslaught to mislead voters into believing that ULA would lead to higher rents and property tax increases.

Many proponents of ULA saw the fight for its passage as a battle between wealthy landowners and struggling renters, fueled by an anti-development ethos. “People are being squeezed financially because of the lack of affordability,” said Christina Livingston, Executive Director of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, a member organization of the United to House LA coalition. “The development that’s going up is market-rate development and luxury development with the notion that more affordable housing will trickle down.”(10) Los Angeles was rapidly growing ever more unaffordable, and the situation was at a breaking point.

On November 8th, 2022, Los Angeles voters were faced with the following choice:(11)

Shall an ordinance funding and authorizing affordable housing programs and resources for tenants at risk of homelessness through a 4% tax on sales/transfers of real property exceeding $5 million, and 5.5% on properties of $10 million or more, with exceptions; until ended by voters; generating approximately $600 million - $1.1 billion annually; be adopted?

58 percent voted yes.

In a press release, the United to House LA coalition celebrated their victory. The measure was a desperately needed stream of revenue to fund homelessness prevention services passed after a hard-fought battle against wealthy corporations. April Verrett, co-chair of the YES on ULA coalition and President of SEIU 2015, described the occasion as “a victory over the millions of dollars of dark money that big real estate interests poured into lies that sought to undermine humane policy in the name of higher profit.”(12)

The Exemption That Wasn’t

At the time of ULA’s passage, some commentators raised concerns with the way the policy was drafted. Shane Phillips, a housing researcher from UCLA’s Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, had built the initial academic framework in a 2020 paper, “A Call For Real Estate Transfer Tax Reform.” Phillips argued that California’s local tax structure was over-reliant on volatile sales taxes and distorted by Proposition 13’s inequitable distribution of property tax burden.(13) A reformed, progressive real estate transfer tax could offer a viable solution to local governments to raise revenue, but Phillips insisted that new multifamily and commercial developments be exempted from any increased transfer tax on their first sale. Without such an exemption, he wrote, “the financial feasibility of development will be undermined, reducing the total amount of new housing production and exacerbating the region’s housing shortage.”(14)

Two years later, Phillips joined a coalition of researchers and advocates, including Occidental College professor Peter Dreier, USC sociologist Manuel Pastor, UCLA law professor Scott Cummings, and Jackson Loop of the Southern California Association of Nonprofit Housing, to co-author a September 2022 white paper formally endorsing Measure ULA ahead of the November ballot. The paper projected that ULA would raise $923 million annually and affect only four percent of Los Angeles real estate transactions.(15) On the question of new construction, the paper acknowledged that some for-profit multifamily developers who build and sell properties might face reduced financial feasibility, but characterized the risk as “very limited, speculative, and context-sensitive.”(16)

Just one month after the ULA white paper, in October 2022, Phillips and graduate student researcher Maya Ofek published a separate analysis focused specifically on the supply-side question the coalition’s analysis had largely set aside. Phillips and Ofek’s research examined ULA’s potential impacts on housing production, and opened by reiterating three of Phillips’ recommendations from 2020 that did not make it into ULA’s final iteration: a broader base applying to lower-value properties, a marginal rather than cliff-edge rate structure, and an exemption for new multifamily developments on their first sale.(17)

Drawing on Los Angeles County Assessor parcel data, Phillips and Ofek estimated that approximately 440 privately funded housing units per year were potentially at risk, including around 50 below-market units bundled into those projects through the city’s Transit Oriented Communities density bonus program. The paper found that taxing new multifamily building sales would raise only $26 million annually, and that the cost of subsidizing enough affordable units to replace the at-risk ones would greatly exceed that amount.(18) In other words, the social cost of taxing new apartment sales could exceed the financial cost of exempting them from ULA.

The coalition that built ULA drew directly on Phillips’ revenue projections and rate structure from the 2020 structural outline but omitted the new multifamily exemption Phillips had identified as essential. The idea that ULA would slow down development by taxing apartments was seen as a nonissue. Indeed, MoveLA explicitly rejected the idea that the housing shortage was caused by the underbuilding of housing, and dismissed the idea of increasing housing supply as “more of an ideology than a strategy.”(19) For some coalition leaders, the possibility that ULA would slow the construction of market rate housing development seemed a neutral outcome at worst.

Buyer’s Remorse?

In the years following ULA’s implementation, researchers debated whether the measure was delivering on its promise. Clearly, ULA is not raising anywhere near the $600 million to $1.1 billion annually predicted on the November 2022 ballot. Revenue only topped $1 billion in early 2026, three years after ULA took effect.(20) Now some researchers are starting to explore whether ULA is actually suppressing the construction of multifamily housing, a consequence predicted years earlier.

The first major salvo came from the UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies and RAND. In a 2025 paper titled “Taxing Tomorrow: Measure ULA’s Impact on Multifamily Housing Production and Potential Reforms,” authors Shane Phillips and Jason Ward used a difference-in-differences model to compare the city of Los Angeles against similar jurisdictions within LA County that did not implement transfer tax increases. The goal was to isolate ULA’s effect on multifamily production; i.e., to identify the number of units that would have been built “but for” Measure ULA. The researchers found that ULA was reducing multifamily housing production by at least 1,910 units per year, an 18 percent decline relative to the 2020-2022 average for projects with 20 or more units. Sales of parcels with high redevelopment potential had dropped by roughly half.(21)

Critically, “Taxing Tomorrow” argued that taxing new multifamily development was hindering affordable housing construction embedded in market-rate projects through density bonus incentives. The researchers conservatively estimated the amount of affordable housing suppressed at at least 100 units on balance annually. ULA was inadvertently destroying more affordable housing than it was funding, with marginal benefits: new multifamily development only comprised 8 percent of ULA’s revenue.(22)

A companion paper from housing economists Michael Manville and Mott Smith extends the analysis beyond construction to the broader transaction market. Their 2025 study, “The Unintended Consequences of Measure ULA,” finds that the tax has induced a 30 to 50 percent decrease in commercial, industrial, and multifamily property transactions overall, and cuts in half the likelihood that a qualifying property will transact above the $5 million threshold. Manville and Smith also estimate an annual property tax revenue loss of approximately $25 million attributable to suppressed transaction volume.(23)

These two papers together established the empirical foundation for ULA reform, finding that ULA raises revenue for affordable housing and homelessness prevention but does so at the cost of new development. The revenue ULA earns from taxing multifamily housing is marginal, but taxing apartments results in a net negative of affordable housing construction. Notably, Shane Phillips also authored the 2020 Lewis Center paper, “A Call For Real Estate Transfer Tax Reform,” that laid the groundwork for a transfer tax in Los Angeles, and co-authored the 2022 pre-passage white paper that projected ULA to raise $923 million in annual revenue. Phillips’ contribution to the academic coalition supporting ULA’s passage complicates any effort by ULA defenders to dismiss the critical research as biased real estate industry propaganda.

The Coalition Strikes Back

A coalition response followed shortly after “Taxing Tomorrow” and “Unintended Consequences.” Greg Bonett of Public Counsel, alongside Scott Cummings and Chris Tilly of UCLA, Peter Dreier and colleagues at Occidental College, and several other scholars – several of whom had also co-authored the 2022 pre-passage white paper endorsing ULA – published “Major Research Flaws Undermine Authors’ Bold Claims: Unpacking the Debate on Measure ULA” in September 2025. The paper targets the Ward and Phillips report, challenging its difference-in-differences methodology, control group selection, and sample size.

The coalition argues the data are inconclusive and the post-ULA observation window is too short for reliable causal inference.(24) Yet the paper produces no affirmative counter-evidence establishing that ULA has not suppressed housing production. Its primary purpose is to introduce ambiguity by discrediting Ward and Phillips’ methodology, rather than propose a competing empirical finding. The coalition also circulated a claim, repeated prominently by ULA defenders, that Measure ULA had created 10,000 union construction jobs. This figure was traced by LAist to a city analysis whose own author stated his conclusions had been misrepresented.(25)

The Lewis Center issued a direct reply to the coalition paper, “The Consequences of Measure ULA: Some Clarifications.” It responds point-by-point to the methodological objections, argues the criticisms are without merit, and specifically examines and rejects the 10,000-jobs claim. The paper holds that the earlier findings stand, rejecting the coalition’s response.(26) As the “Clarifications” paper argues, the coalition intervention did not resolve the scientific question; it muddied it, which may have been the whole point.

In March 2026, consultancy BAE Urban Economics prepared a report commissioned by the Liberty Hill Foundation, a major ULA coalition booster.(27) The report was distributed by United to House LA through their newsletter and social media.(28) The study’s headline finding, that broader macroeconomic headwinds are a larger drag on feasibility than ULA itself, is analytically beside the point. The goal of Lewis Center papers was to explore how ULA impacts housing construction above and beyond other factors.

More specific methodological failures were documented in real time by Shane Phillips on his Better Institutions blog.(29) BAE tested only two building typologies in one of the city’s 34 community plan areas (specifically, the Wilshire corridor) and drew citywide conclusions from that sample. The modeling scenarios appeared structured to systematically exclude circumstances where ULA would actually be the marginal variable hindering development. “The question is, or should be, whether ULA is making matters worse, and the BAE report appears carefully designed to arrive at ‘no’ for its answer,” Phillips argued.(30)

Intellectual Property

None of the coalition responses to ULA critiques, however, address a larger concern, which is that a reduction in the volume of sales of large property reduces their rate of reassessment. A team of researchers at UC Irvine, Harvard, and UCSD argue in “Fiscal Externalities of Transaction Taxes” (forthcoming in the Journal of Public Economics) that because California only reassesses property values upon sale, each transaction that ULA suppresses is also a property tax reassessment that never occurs.(31) The revenue that would have been generated from those higher assessments, compounding over years, is a fiscal externality of the transfer tax that ULA’s supporters don’t account for.

The researchers find this effect is large: the property tax revenue loss from suppressed transactions conservatively offsets at least two-thirds of ULA’s gross revenue, and under plausible assumptions may exceed 100 percent.(32) The implication is that the net fiscal contribution of the transfer tax to public revenues on balance could actually be negative. This is the finding that is hardest for ULA defenders to absorb, because it attacks not the housing production argument (which they contest on methodological grounds) but the revenue justification, which is the policy’s core rationale.

At the third anniversary of ULA’s enactment, the need for reform is clear. Three independent research efforts using different methodologies and different data sources have converged on the same general finding: Measure ULA is likely hurting more than it helps, either by suppressing housing production, limiting property tax revenue, or both. The coalition responses have introduced noise without producing signal. They do not provide empirical findings, alternative models, or affirmative evidence to support the theory that ULA is not causing harm.

Reasonable people can disagree about how exactly to fix ULA. But what is clear based on the current evidence is that ULA needs fixing. At minimum, exempting new multifamily development from the transfer tax on its first sale, the reform Phillips identified before ULA was ever drafted, would stop the policy from destroying the very thing it exists to build. But ULA’s boosters have so far doubled down on their opposition to any changes.

Taxpayers of the World Unite!

Just weeks after ULA’s passage, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles filed suit to nullify the measure in December 2022. Their chief complaint argued that the tax violated Article XIII A of the California Constitution as a “special tax” earmarked for a specific purpose, which would have required a two-thirds supermajority rather than the simple majority by which it passed.(33)

The HJTA challenge was legally flimsy from the jump. ULA’s drafters had structured the measure as a citizens’ initiative precisely to exploit the so-called Upland loophole, an ambiguity created by the California Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, which held that the two-thirds vote requirement might not apply to taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative rather than by a government body.(34) The Los Angeles County Superior Court rejected HJTA’s arguments in late 2023, and in December 2025, the Second Appellate District affirmed, upholding ULA.(35)

Having lost repeatedly in court, the HJTA escalated to the statewide arena. It had already attempted to retroactively invalidate ULA by backing the Taxpayer Protection Act, a constitutional amendment that would have required two-thirds voter approval for all local special taxes, citizen-initiated or not. The California Supreme Court removed the Taxpayer Protection Act from the ballot in June 2024 before voters could weigh in, ruling unanimously that it constituted an impermissible revision of the state constitution rather than a mere amendment.(36)

Undeterred, HJTA filed a new initiative, the Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13, targeting the November 2026 ballot. The initiative would close both the transfer tax loophole and the Upland loophole, banning all real estate transfer taxes above 0.11 percent and requiring the new two-thirds threshold for all local special taxes regardless of how they reach the ballot. ULA became the poster child for its efforts, with HJTA characterizing it as the most egregious product of a decade of eroding taxpayer protections. The Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13 has gained the signatures to appear on the statewide ballot; if it passes, it will eliminate Measure ULA outright and deal a devastating blow to efforts to raise local tax revenue.(37)

Paved With Good Intentions

Thus, the coalition effort to discredit the Lewis Center studies is arguably borne out of an effort to make ULA more politically resilient in response to growing opposition. Public Counsel attorney Greg Bonett is lead author of “Major Research Flaws Undermine Authors’ Bold Claims” and has defended Measure ULA against the HJTA siege in court. He argues that there does not yet exist reliable data to quantify Measure ULA’s impact, and that none of the Lewis Center findings should be used to inform policymaking decisions.(38) This is somewhat ironic: it was the Lewis Center’s 2020 call for transfer tax reform, authored by Shane Phillips, that provided the academic underpinnings of the campaign to launch ULA to begin with.

Bonett’s co-author, Scott Cummings, is a professor of Professional Responsibility at UCLA School of Law. “There was a specific political goal with respect to putting information into the record about exactly what the impact of ULA has been in order to inform public debate,” said Cummings of the rationale for authoring a response to the Lewis Center studies.(39) Downplaying findings of ULA’s unintended consequences and introducing ambiguity is a political strategy crafted to respond to attacks from the HJTA and other activists.

Faizah Malik is a tenants’ rights attorney with Public Counsel who helped draft Measure ULA. Together with her Public Counsel colleague Greg Bonett, she has worked to defend ULA against legal challenges from anti-tax groups. While Malik acknowledges that a slowdown in housing production would be bad for affordability, she is unconvinced by evidence showing that this is the case. “What I see is a dispute in the data,” Malik said. “If there is an impact on multifamily production, it would make sense to address it, and we have to address it locally.”(40) But that dispute was manufactured: housing permitting in Los Angeles hit its second-lowest level since 2013 in 2025, and three independent research efforts have identified ULA as a contributing cause.(41)

Conclusion

Measure ULA has raised over a billion dollars for tenant protection and affordable housing in a city that desperately needs both, and it has done so by taxing a segment of the real estate market that could bear the burden. Its framers understood the political landscape, built a durable coalition, and navigated a hostile legal environment with considerable sophistication. The policy’s passage was a genuine achievement.

The problem is that ULA’s framers made a deliberate choice to omit an exemption for new multifamily construction that the policy’s own academic architects had identified as essential. Now, several empirical studies using different methodologies and different control groups have converged on the same finding: ULA is suppressing the multifamily housing production that Los Angeles needs, destroying more affordable units through the density bonus mechanism than it funds through its revenue. This inflicts a steep cost on the people ULA was supposed to help.

When the evidence became too substantial to ignore, the coalition that built ULA commissioned studies structured to discredit critics, manufacture ambiguity, and exaggerate ULA’s successes. Academic language is distilled into press releases and spoken into megaphones at rallies outside City Hall. Modest exemptions to ULA are dismissed as handouts for greedy developers, and proponents of ULA reform are portrayed as shills for corporate real estate interests. Such rhetoric is politically popular but misleading, and reflects a political strategy of downplaying valid critiques of ULA’s impact on housing production to bolster popular support for the measure.

Following Raman’s controversial motion to explore amending ULA, the Los Angeles City Council formed a three-member ad hoc committee to consolidate all pending ULA reform proposals and make recommendations for the November ballot. While there is some debate over the exact technical nature of what reforms to enact, the point is that we should be open to them. In November 2026, Los Angeles voters may be asked simultaneously whether to fix ULA and whether to eliminate it.

The argument here is not that ULA should be repealed – it absolutely should not be, and we must continue fighting to save ULA on the ballot and in court. ULA provides an unprecedented source of revenue for a valuable cause. The argument is that ULA’s boosters are simultaneously correct that ULA should exist and wrong about how it should be structured. We can disagree about what reforms to enact, and we should encourage a robust debate about how we can reform ULA to ensure that as much housing gets built as possible.

Doubling down on resistance to reasonable changes to ULA ignores the human cost of not building enough housing, something with real consequences for Angelenos suffering from unaffordability. ULA’s defenders are not defending affordable housing. They are defending ULA. Those are not the same thing, and Los Angeles’s housing crisis is severe enough that the difference matters.

Notes

1. Press Release, Councilmember Nithya Raman, Councilmember Raman Introduces Motion to Reform Measure ULA to Unlock Housing Production in Los Angeles (Jan. 23, 2026), https://cd4.lacity.gov/press-releases/councilmember-raman-introduces-motion-to-reform-ula/.

2. Cynthia Strathmann, For the Love of God, Let Measure ULA Work, SAJE (Jan. 23, 2026), https://www.saje.net/for-the-love-of-god-let-measure-ula-work/.

3. Joe Donlin, Dir., United to House LA, Statement on Measure ULA Reform (Jan. 23, 2026), quoted in Ben Christopher, Los Angeles Might Tweak Its ‘Mansion Tax.’ Here’s Why That Matters for the Rest of California, CalMatters (Jan. 23, 2026), https://calmatters.org/housing/2026/01/measure-ula-raman-howard-jarvis-ballot/.

4. Measure ULA 2022, MoveLA, https://www.movela.org/measure_ula_2022_content.

5. United to House LA (ULA), L.A. Hous. Dep’t, https://housing.lacity.gov/ula.

6. Ron Galperin, Comptroller, City of L.A., The Problems and Progress of Prop. HHH, ArcGIS StoryMaps (2020), https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/bc84be5b5f794fc7a1c6e81bc5ef0104.

7. The group of ULA supporters is referred to throughout as “United to House LA”, “the coalition”, or the “ULA coalition”.

8. Peter Dreier, Los Angeles’ Housing Revolution, 32 Poverty & Race 1, 5 (Jan.–Mar. 2023).

9. Id.

10. Aditi Ramaswami, Real Estate Billionaires Are Fighting Tooth and Nail Against Measure ULA, Jacobin (Nov. 1, 2022), https://jacobin.com/2022/11/los-angeles-measure-ula-real-estate-tax-opposition.

11. Los Angeles, California, Proposition ULA, Tax on $5 Million House Sales Initiative (November 2022), Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Los_Angeles,_California,Proposition_ULA,Tax_on$5_Million_House_Sales_Initiative(November_2022).

12. Press Release, Yes on ULA Coalition, Yes on ULA Statement on Projected Passage of Measure ULA (Nov. 14, 2022).

13. Shane Phillips, A Call for Real Estate Transfer Tax Reform 4 (UCLA Lewis Ctr. for Reg’l Pol’y Studies, July 2020).

14. Id. at 14.

15. Peter Dreier et al., An Analysis of Measure ULA: A Ballot Measure to Reform Real Estate Transfer Taxes in the City of Los Angeles 2 (Sept. 2022).

16. Id. at 12.

17. Shane Phillips & Maya Ofek, How Will the Measure ULA Transfer Tax Initiative Impact Housing Production in Los Angeles? 4-5 (UCLA Lewis Ctr. for Reg’l Pol’y Studies, Oct. 2022).

18. Id. at 13.

19. Measure ULA 2022, supra note 4.

20. TRD Staff, Measure ULA Revenue Passes $1B Mark as Three-Year Anniversary Approaches, The Real Deal (Jan. 13, 2026), https://therealdeal.com/la/2026/01/13/revenue-from-measure-ula-passes-1-billion-milestone/.

21. Jason Ward & Shane Phillips, Taxing Tomorrow: Measure ULA’s Impact on Multifamily Housing Production and Potential Reforms 36 (UCLA Lewis Ctr. for Reg’l Pol’y Studies & RAND Corp., Apr. 2025).

22. Id.

23. Michael Manville & Mott Smith, The Unintended Consequences of Measure ULA 8 (UCLA Lewis Ctr. for Regional Pol’y Studies, Apr. 2025).

24. Greg Bonett et al., Major Research Flaws Undermine Authors’ Bold Claims: Unpacking the Debate on Measure ULA (Sept. 2025).

25. David Wagner, How Did an ‘Implausible’ Claim About Jobs Created by LA’s ‘Mansion Tax’ Get Cited by Watchdogs?, LAist (Nov. 7, 2025), https://laist.com/news/housing-homelessness/los-angeles-mansion-tax-measure-ula-housing-construction-jobs-citizen-oversight-committee.

26. Michael Manville, Mott Smith & Shane Phillips, The Consequences of Measure ULA: Some Clarifications, UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies (Aug. 2025).

27. BAE Urban Economics, Analysis of the Impact of the ULA Tax on Incentivizing New Development (Mar. 2026).

28. United to House LA Coalition, Press Release: United to House LA Reaction to Mend It Don’t End It Presentation to Ad Hoc Committee, United to House LA (Mar. 2026), https://unitedtohousela.com.

29. Shane Phillips, Initial Thoughts on BAE Urban Economics’ Analysis of Measure ULA, Better Institutions (Mar. 21, 2026), https://www.betterinstitutions.com/blog/2026/3/21/initial-thoughts-on-the-measure-ula-analysis-by-bae-urban-economics.

30. Id.

31. Daniel Green, Vikram Jambulapati, Jack Liebersohn & Tejaswi Velayudhan, Fiscal Externalities of Transaction Taxes: Evidence from the Los Angeles Mansion Tax (June 3, 2025) (unpublished manuscript).

32. Id. at 20.

33. Taxpayers and Apartment Owners File Legal Challenge to Measure ULA, L.A.’s New Tax on Real Estate Sales and Transfers, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n (Feb. 3, 2024), https://www.hjta.org/press-releases/taxpayers-and-apartment-owners-file-legal-challenge-to-measure-ula-l-a-s-new-tax-on-real-estate-sales-and-transfers/.

34. California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal. 5th 924 (2017).

35. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, No. B334071 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2025).

36. Legislature of the State of California v. Weber (Hiltachk), California Supreme Court, June 20, 2024.

37. Jon Coupal, Taxpayer Protection Initiative Qualifies for the November Ballot, L.A. Daily News (Apr. 26, 2026), https://www.dailynews.com/2026/04/26/jon-coupal-taxpayer-protection-initiative-qualifies-for-the-november-ballot/.

38. Interview with Greg Bonett, Attorney, Public Counsel, in Los Angeles, Cal. (Dec. 18, 2025).

39. Interview with Scott Cummings, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, in Los Angeles, Cal. (Dec. 16, 2025).

40. Interview with Faizah Malik, Tenants’ Rights Attorney, Public Counsel, in Los Angeles, Cal. (Nov. 28, 2025).

41. Report: L.A. Residential Permitting Was Historically Weak in 2025, Urbanize L.A. (Jan. 14, 2026), https://la.urbanize.city/post/report-la-residential-permitting-was-historically-weak-2025.

Karen Bass in Sawtelle

One May day a few weeks ago I was walking my dog through my lovely neighborhood of Sawtelle when I stumbled across a film crew set up outside an apartment under construction at 1734 S Barrington Ave. The project was being built under Executive Directive 1 (ED1), a directive passed by Karen Bass that allows affordable housing an exemption from parking mandates.

I knew this because I’d advocated for this building and its counterpart a block over at 1747 Stoner at an extremely contentious Neighborhood Council meeting last year. I figured the crew were doing some sort of promotion for ED1 and the homes it was building. So I stuck around and sure enough, Mayor Bass arrived on scene.

ED1 is an awesome law because it illustrates the fact that the housing shortage is a deliberate choice. It also shows how cars and car dependency make housing more expensive. And it lays bare the resistance of neighbors to allowing working people to live in their neighborhoods if it means that they will share the same public street parking spaces.

I shook the Mayor’s hand, mentioned my connection to the neighborhood, and thanked her for passing ED1 — even though she had quickly backtracked and severely restricted where ED1 could apply after landowners complained. A couple weeks later, I received a mailer featuring Karen Bass standing with a group of people in front of the 1734 Barrington project. The day this was shot, I was standing behind the camera with my dog watching the whole thing play out. The irony.

Flash back to a year ago, May 20th 2025. The West LA Sawtelle Neighborhood Council was hosting a “listening session” on ED1 projects in Sawtelle, including the apartments at 1734 S Barrington, 1747 Stoner, and others. People were furious that affordable housing without parking was being built near them.

One woman described her disdain for construction workers: “They’re up at 7, they leave at 3 but the music goes on, they’re yelling at each other, they’re hanging around like monkeys” (19:19). Other landowners demanded compensation for any lost property value from having affordable housing built near them. “This is essentially a Palisades fire happening to me,” said a landowner, expressing that the construction of affordable housing would affect the value of one of her properties located nearby (34:23).

I wish I was joking, but these are real things that people said in opposition to affordable housing in Los Angeles. The vehement opposition to affordable housing caught me off guard at that meeting a year ago. I was still pretty green to the housing space and stumbled through a public comment in support of the proposed projects.

To be charitable let’s assume this all comes down to parking. I think there’s probably more people than we’d like to admit who don’t want affordable housing near them because they’re legitimately worried about poor people living near them. And there’s of course the landlords and homeowners concerned with property values. But let’s set aside the thinly veiled racism and classism and talk about why affordable housing and parking are interlinked.

Parking is never free

ED1 works because parking is expensive to build, costing as much as $100,00 per space. This is because to make space to store all those empty cars, you have to dig a big pit underground or a multi-level parking structure. The latter is less expensive but leads to a streetscape dominated by dead space and parking garage entrances, and can add several stories of height to a building. Building homes for the cars before building homes for people also takes time, and time is money. If parking is mandated, the housing will necessarily be more expensive.

Well why doesn’t the government just build affordable housing? The city of Los Angeles is broke, so we can’t afford the subsidize the affordable housing we need to solve the current shortage. ED1 is so effective because it makes it possible for private builders to build affordable housing without government subsidy. It’s the best tool we have in our toolkit to actually lower the cost of rent.

In The High Cost of Free Parking, urban planner Donald Shoup uses an analogy to explain why parking mandates make everything more expensive. Imagine there was a law that required restaurants to start serving dessert with dinner. When you ordered dinner, you’d get a “free” dessert. But it wouldn’t really be free: restaurants would just raise the cost of dinner to cover the dessert they were required to provide.

Some people would end up eating dessert they didn’t really want, just because it was there and why not? For the people that weren’t hungry, a lot of food would go to waste. And higher prices would make it harder for most people to afford the cost of eating out.

Requiring builders to add parking to an apartment is like requiring restaurants to serve dessert with dinner. When we mandate parking, we impose costs on housing that get passed down to renters. Parking mandates mean that people will be paying for the cost of parking regardless of whether they own a car. So why not drive then? There’s no incentive to reduce one’s car usage or take public transit. The people that can’t afford a car to begin with are stuck paying for parking all the same while the land used to store the cars they don’t have sits empty.

Parking mandates make housing more expensive and keep Los Angeles trapped in car dependency. If you can’t afford a car, you end up paying for one through the higher cost of living in a building subject to parking mandates.

It seems especially nonsensical to oppose affordable housing because it has no parking in a neighborhood as dense and walkable as Sawtelle. This is a neighborhood with close proximity to the future D line station at the VA complex and the E line stops at Expo/Sepulveda and Expo/Bundy. There is fast and convenient local bus access to UCLA, Santa Monica, Venice, and West Hollywood.

Many young professionals and veterans live here, and the two locations where these people travel — the VA and UCLA — are both easily accessible through micromobility and public transit. Sure, some people may choose to drive, but why force them to do so by mandating parking? If there’s any neighborhood where it makes the most sense to build affordable housing that doesn’t require parking, it’s Sawtelle.

That’s another thing: many of the ED1 projects in this neighborhood are being built specifically for low-income veterans. Many of the people living in their vehicles or on the streets in Sawtelle are veterans who need to be close to the VA, where they get services, but can’t afford the cost of living on the Westside. That’s the case with the 1734 S Barrington project, as well as the 11418 Missouri project, another project people complained about at that May 20th meeting last year that has since been completed and rented out.

Some builders may choose to add parking because they feel it will make their building a more attractive and convenient place to live for the consumers they are hoping to attract. And that’s fine, that’s their choice and nobody’s stopping them. Those units will probably be more expensive than others that don’t have parking. It’s mandating the parking that makes housing more expensive for everybody.

Planning for the public good

The point is that ED1 proves it’s entirely possible to build abundant, affordable housing at scale without costing taxpayers a dime. The fact that Los Angeles is so unaffordable, that over a quarter of renters are paying more than half their income for rent, that homelessness is so rampant — these things are all optional.

No single landlord complaining about parking at a neighborhood council meeting got us to where we’re at, but rather a series of opaque regulations, public comments, lawsuit threats, and bureaucracy. Decision making power has shifted from smoke-filled backrooms to obscure committee meetings on weekdays that extend hours into the night, where NIMBYs air grievances and obstruct barriers to new housing.

To landowners the idea of people struggling to pay rent isn’t the emergency. Rather, the true emergency is that they will have to share city-owned public street parking spots with working-class people living in apartments. And they’ll go so far as to speak on behalf of those working-class people to say that they wouldn’t want the apartments anyway because of the lack of parking!

ED1 also shows how parking is not a public good. Examples of public goods include things like street lights, sidewalks, and clean air. A public good is non-excludable, which means you can’t stop people from using it once it’s provided. A public good is also non-rival, meaning one person’s use doesn’t diminish availability for others. Imagine if local landlords were fighting affordable housing because it would mean that there would be more people walking on well-lit sidewalks, breathing smog-free air! Our car dependency divides us and places us in competition for limited space that we use to store our empty vehicles. If parking isn’t a public good, then why do we plan our society around it as if it were?

So yeah, there you have it. Los Angeles does not need to be unaffordable. ED1 presents communities with a clear choice. Do we want to build affordable housing, fast… or do we want to impose parking mandates that keep Los Angeles car-dependent and over-priced? Landlords and homeowners are fighting tooth-and-nail for the latter outcome. But that’s not the way things have to be.

Epilogue: Oakland

Before Los Angeles I lived in Oakland in an old Victorian on 10th Ave. There were 5 of us, all friends in our early 20s, perpetually broke and grimy. Four bedrooms with a guy living in the attic, one bathroom. No parking. Most of the other buildings in the neighborhood were pretty similar. Decaying old Victorians subdivided and packed to the brim with whole extended families or rag-tag groups of young people trying to get a grip on life. I paid $754 in rent.

Two of my roommates owned cars, which they parked on the street, the rest of us couldn’t afford them so we bummed rides, took the bus, rode bikes. We rode bikes everywhere: to Lake Merritt to hang out, to the gym where we all trained, to First Fridays on Telegraph Ave. Not because we were bike people, but because that’s how we got around because we were cheap and it was fun and more often than not it was beautiful outside.

I had a motorcycle that I parked on our front lawn which I rode until a car making an unprotected left hit me head on riding down 14th St. After that it was bus and bicycle only for a while. Eventually I got a car and struggled to look for parking like everybody else when I got home after work each day. Street sweeping days were particularly hectic. But ultimately I was fine.

Sometimes I look back at that weird liminal time of my life in college and the years that followed. What it meant to be able to live in that old shack on 10th Ave, at the margins sure, but in a place I could call home with a diverse group of close friends and neighbors who I knew by name. If the whole neighborhood were redesigned with parking mandates in mind, none of those characters would be able to afford to live there. And it was the people that made that place special. Hanging out on the porch. Going for walks with the dog and saying hello to friends.

It’s for these same reasons that I love Sawtelle, and I wish it was affordable for more people. We have the chance to build a future in Los Angeles where people can come here and live and figure things out while they work towards their dreams. Los Angeles is a blank slate, that’s why this place is so awesome, and now we have the chance to draw up the blueprint for a city that works for everybody.

I advocate for safer streets with my organization People’s Vision Zero. Our organization started when we painted crosswalks at Stoner Park in Sawtelle starting last May. The city removed the crosswalks, then we rallied community support to corner the city into adding them back. (No pun intended.) Since then I’ve been advocating for mobility justice and safer streets around Los Angeles, including here in CD11. That’s why I’m voting for Faizah Malik on June 2nd.

I’m proud to have worked on Faizah’s transportation policy, which includes recommitting to Vision Zero, our city’s promise to end traffic deaths. Faizah has also advocated for volunteers like me to have the ability to make road safety improvements and throw open street community celebrations in their neighborhoods.

Faizah is a mom. She rides bikes with her two kids. She’s somebody who I feel understands what the Westside could be like if we made it safer and more accessible for people to get around without a car. She’s supported safe routes for kids to bike to school, expediting pedestrianization of areas like Windward Plaza, and building a Westside bike network.

Traci Park is an effective politician and her staff are efficient and punctual. She does a great job of representing her constituents. But one of Traci Park’s most hardcore constituencies is aggrieved drivers. These are people who genuinely believe that the cost of human life is worth saving a few minutes on the road. They look at streets like Pershing, Vista Del Mar, Washington even, as arterial highways designed for their personal convenience. They show up to public comment on weekday nights and yell about bike lanes. Traci Park cultivates their support and supports their interests in return.

When a driver killed Regan Cole-Graham, pregnant with her child Ophelia, while she was cycling with her family on Pershing Drive, advocates including myself called for change. A survey commissioned by Park’s office showed that most residents wanted proven safety treatments on Pershing Drive, including lane reductions and other physical changes to the roadway that prevent speeding.

So what did Traci Park do? She illegally recorded herself driving in her city-issued blue Mustang down Pershing Drive past the memorial, assuring drivers that any lane closures wouldn’t inconvenience them. If she takes urgent action to make our streets safer, Traci Park will alienate her most hardcore supporters. Just look at the comments on her post:

One constituent wrote:

People died here. But not surprising, coming from a Park supporter.

To her credit, Traci Park took quick action to authorize safety improvements on Vista Del Mar (a nearby street) after a deadly road rage incident. Which is odd. I don’t think Traci Park’s ever supported adding a bike lane that didn’t also involve sweeping homeless encampments, like on Jefferson. Until Vista Del Mar is truly safe to walk and bike on I’ll be skeptical.

After more and more preventable deaths and pedestrian collisions in the area I predicted if Park proposed a solution, it’d be more police. Which is exactly what happened on Vista Del Mar. Traci gets to say she cares, the police union’s happy and they continue to bankroll her reelection campaign (they’ve given her over a million dollars!!!). But that’s not a permanent solution and Traci Park is only catering to the grievances of her loudest and most entitled supporters.

We need real physical change in our streets and fast. These tragedies are not accidents, they are the predictable consequences of a culture that puts driver convenience over human life.

Traci Park is similarly beholden to her loudest and most aggrieved supporters on housing. I’ve watched landowners have near melt-downs in neighborhood council public comment sessions because they felt like affordable housing for veterans in Sawtelle was going to lower their profits. If that’s you, Park’s your candidate. If you’re somebody like me feeling frustrated by the cost of living, consider Faizah.

To be fair, not all Traci Park supporters are like that and I don’t blame them. The shadow of Mike Bonin looms large over CD11 and I think a lot of people felt disgruntled by what they felt was a flippant or condescending attitude towards homelessness during the pandemic. People have the right to be aggrieved, the right to want to feel safe and not be disturbed. And they don’t like being made to feel bad for believing that.

Mike Bonin, however, is not running in this election. He hasn’t been on the ballot in several years. Traci Park desperately comparing Malik to Bonin is the same as Trump continuing to blame Joe Biden for stuff. Get over it.

Besides, homelessness is a direct consequence of not building enough homes and Traci Park shuffling people around the city only for them to return later is a waste of law enforcement resources and a terrible excuse for a solution. The problem of homelessness is like a leaky roof, and encampment sweeps are like putting a bucket underneath. Traci Park is getting funded by the bucket company (the police union) and refusing to fix the hole in the roof. And by fighting new housing she’s making the hole bigger!

The only solution to homelessness is building more homes, which Faizah unequivocally supports. Not everything we build is going to be pretty, or at a price point that we all like, and there might be some growing pains but we need to build housing and we need to build it as fast as possible. The Westside needs to grow to preserve its character, which is the neighborhood characters. Los Angeles is so great, and the Westside in particular, because people come here from all walks of life to with crazy dreams and big ideas. If we do not build enough housing, not only will homeless grow worse but we will lose a part of what we love about Los Angeles.

As long as Traci Park and her corporate landlord donors have a seat in City Hall, they will conspire to limit development and keep prices high. I suppose that’s the conundrum, right? If we want housing to be affordable housing has to be affordable. Corporate interests and ladder-pulling homeowners don’t want that, and that’s why they’re backing Traci Park.

And if you’re an overzealous YIMBYs worried that Faizah’s not pro-housing enough because she’s a ULA supporter: you’re doing the same thing you probably accuse progressives of, which makes you no better. Let’s focus first on getting people into office who actually want to fix the housing problem.

Despite all I’ve said about Traci Park, I’m not voting for Faizah out of spite. Faizah is the better candidate. She has decency. At the CD11 debate, Traci Park leveled personal attacks against Faizah, falsely accusing her of being Mike Bonin’s lawyer. That was weird, Faizah took the high road, and I respect her for it. She is a wholesome woman.

Faizah makes me feel like we can restore civility to our politics. She is compassionate and kind, but a fearless advocate at the same time. She’s been proactive about engaging with young people and community groups. Working with her campaign has eased my cynicism towards this city’s future and the state of the world in general. It’s brought me closer to my neighbors and my community. And it’s given me hope that people care about the world and want to make things better.

I want to live in a city where housing is affordable, where people are free: unshackled from car dependency and the prohibitively high cost of living, safe to walk the streets and explore the neighborhood and be in community. These are Faizah’s values. That’s why I think she’s an excellent candidate and I’m excited to vote for her.

My name’s Jonathan Hale. Most people call me Jonny. I founded an organization called People’s Vision Zero, to advocate for safer streets and more effective government. I got arrested painting crosswalks back in December to call attention to our city’s failure to live up to Vision Zero, our promise to end traffic deaths by the year 2025.

I’m voting for Nithya Raman on June 2nd, and I hope you’ll consider doing the same.

Los Angeles means the world to me because Los Angeles is the world. It’s a blank slate, the void, the place where humanity confronts itself. Los Angeles was not built by people who stopped to rest on their laurels and said “this is good enough”. This is a city of builders, a city of dreamers, a city of people who have faith. And that’s why I love it here.

This is the first election I’ve really cared about because what happens says a lot about where we’re at and where we’re going. Being outside, on transit, in the streets with a camera, led me down this rabbit hole that brought me to the present moment and the need to say something about it.

There have been many moments since I’ve lived here that have shaped who I am and what I believe, visceral reminders of the consequences of our society’s choices. Attending a memorial celebrating the life of Nadir Gavarrete, a 9-year-old boy who was killed by a driver in Koreatown. Riding with thousands of other cyclists in memory of Regan Cole-Graham, a cyclist killed by a driver on a street where bike lanes had been removed. Meeting the families of the individuals killed when a driver careened into a 99 Ranch Market.

So much needless death.

Countless close calls while walking my dog, cars blowing stop signs. On a bike: drivers passing close, honking, mad at you for existing. Getting right hooked in the bike lane on Venice. Waiting in the hot sun for a bus that never comes. I’m tired of it all.

This is about more than just making the streets safer, even though it’s unconscionable we’ve gotten to a point where cars kill more people than murders. Los Angeles was not built by cars, it was divided by cars. Imposing the high cost of car ownership on everybody as a fact of life makes our society vastly more inequitable. Roads and highways segregate our neighborhoods and pollute our communities. Parking requirements make housing more expensive and disincentivize alternative modes of transportation.

This doesn’t have to be the way things are and I know because I’ve seen it and it gives me hope. Taking the first D line train from Union Station to Wilshire/La Cienega packed to the brim with people beaming with pride that we as a society could really overcome obstacles and do something great together. Handing out flyers on the Metro, getting commuters to call our state representatives to get SB79 passed and legalize housing around our major transit stops. Tabling for Streets For All at CicLAvia, seeing how excited people were to experience open streets, families outside together enjoying the clean air.

Nithya represents this version of LA for me. She represents hope. Even if Nithya loses the race or life takes me elsewhere or I finally get wasted by an angry driver I’ll be happy knowing that I got a peek behind the curtain. But I don’t want this version of Los Angeles to just exist in my head, even if that’s what keeps me going and gets me out of bed every morning. I want to be there when it happens and enjoy it and hopefully raise my kids there someday.

That’s why I’m writing this. That’s why I’m knocking on doors for Nithya, passing out pamphlets, putting up a sign in my apartment window. Now’s our shot to elect a champion with a vision and a plan for a city that works. I’ve met Nithya and I know that she is somebody who sees Los Angeles for all its greatness and imperfections and wants to bring the city forward. She loves Los Angeles as it is, while planning for what it could be.

I’m tired of empty promises, pandering, and slopulism. But Nithya offers none of those things. She’s technically informed and data-led, with a masters in urban planning from MIT. When I hear the way she talks about Los Angeles, I hear somebody who shares my passion for building this city for the future.

This is a place where anything is possible. Or rather anything should be possible. And Nithya knows what is: an interconnected city built around a wold-class transit system and bike network; a place where you can afford to move to and be broke for a few years while you figure things out; a home for people of all stripes to live a meaningful life. I believe in these things too and that’s why I love LA and that’s why I’m voting for Nithya, because our future depends on it.

Progressives are split on whether to vote for Rae. The DSA Primary Voter Guide shows a progressive split between Rae and Nithya, with the plurality of DSA’s Electoral Committee supporting Nithya.1

Based on polling to date, it seems that the most likely outcome is a runoff election between Spencer Pratt and Mayor Bass.2

The latest polling from Emerson, released May 13, supports the findings of earlier polls and adds this bit of insight: Even if every single undecided voter (16%) went for Rae (4%), she still would not meet the threshold needed to be a top two candidate (>22%).3

If Rae’s supporters backed Nithya, it is likely that Pratt would be eliminated from contention and voters would face a Bass versus Nithya runoff. Since Karen Bass will likely make the runoff anyway, Rae remaining in the race helps Spencer Pratt more than any other candidate.

It cannot be stated more explicitly: If Rae continues to run, we will likely get a Bass versus Pratt runoff, which means absolutely zero chance of Rae’s vision becoming reality over the next four years.

If Rae makes the incredibly courageous decision to support Nithya, at least some of the policies they are both aligned on will bear fruit, and Nithya can be more easily lobbied to align on others if elected.

Rae is a pastor. She is a unifying voice, capable of building coalitions and bringing people together. LA needs nothing less at this moment.

The longer Rae decides to stay in the race, the more likely a Pratt versus Bass general election becomes. The decision is yours.

On March 3rd, the Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa Del Rey held a special meeting to discuss traffic safety on Pershing Drive. CD11 Councilwoman Traci Park’s staff presented an overview of the history of the corridor, as well as the results of a neighborhood survey and potential safety improvements.

First, Captain Espinoza of the LAPD West Traffic Division provided a briefing of recent traffic violence on Pershing. On January 31, Regan Cole-Graham was cycling southbound on Pershing, preparing to make a left (eastbound) turn on Manchester, when a driver struck her from behind, killing her. On March 2, a driver making a left turn severely injured a pedestrian crossing Pershing at Manitoba.

Regan’s bicycle was properly illuminated, she was wearing a helmet, and was following all traffic laws. The pedestrian that was hit was in a crosswalk. In neither case was driver speed or impairment a factor.

LADOT Assistant General Manager Daniel Mitchell presented an overview of potential safety improvements, and confirmed that bike lanes make roads safer for all users. And that’s kind of the point — without implementing physical changes to slow cars, Pershing is designed to be deadly.

Next Park’s team presented the survey results. A clear majority (57%) of respondents support or strongly supported bike lanes and lane reductions. Additional lighting, lane reductions and bike lanes, and speed tables were the priority top priority improvements.

The weeknight meeting was full. Regan’s family was in attendance. Commenters passionately shared their experiences with Pershing’s deadly design. Some neighbors pointed out that it is dangerous to access the beach from the surrounding neighborhood, particularly with kids.

Park herself was there, and later posted a picture of herself on Facebook in attendance. (Regan’s family left before they could be a part of the photo op.)

Here’s the public comment I delivered, addressing the history of bike lanes on Pershing and a campaign mailer I received from Park’s team at a farmer’s market recently:

Just a few weeks ago, I painted a ghost bike for a child, Regan’s child.

We call it traffic violence because it’s violent. It is also preventable.

Pershing Drive – as well as Vista Del Mar, Jefferson, and Culver – are wide, high-speed roadways where people walking and biking are expected to survive conditions designed to benefit drivers at the expense of safety for everyone else.

After multiple deaths, the city installed bike lanes and pedestrian improvements on some of these streets, then removed them when people decided that human life was a worthwhile cost for their convenience.

When a street is demonstrably dangerous, the City has a responsibility to fix it. Installing bike lanes and pedestrian safety improvements on Pershing Drive and other streets in this neighborhood is a necessary, evidence-based step to prevent future tragedies.

Councilwoman Park, just weeks after a driver killed Regan and Ophelia, you sent out a campaign mailer which says that one of your favorite things about the Westside is “sleepy sunset bike rides”. That’s what Regan was doing when a driver killed her and her daughter. You should take immediate action to ensure your constituents can ride without fear of being killed.

The only opposition, predictably, came from the Board. One board member argued that the main issue was poor conduct by cyclists and pedestrians, and that jaywalking should be criminalized. Another suggested that the California Coastal Commission might need to approve proposed changes. Neighborhood Council Director Tabitha Butler took a principled stand against her fellow board members, asserting that convenience should never come at the expense of human life.

Ultimately, both the survey results and the opinions of locals indicated clear support for safety improvements — including lane reductions and bike lanes. These are common sense solutions supported by a majority of locals that will save lives above all else. Making roadways safer for all users also helps neighborhoods become more interconnected and friendly places to live.

So when can we expect these changes to be made? Will Councilwoman Park act with a sense of urgency to listen to her constituents and prevent more tragedy on Pershing?

Probably not, but I’d be relieved if Councilwoman Park proved me wrong.

If you follow the money, you start to understand why Park refuses to prioritize road safety improvements over driver convenience. Park will likely downplay the need for physical changes to the roadway favored by her constituents and instead call for increased traffic enforcement. That’s because the Police Protective League, LAPD’s powerful union, has donated nearly a half a million dollars to bankroll Park’s re-election campaign. Increased traffic enforcement alone will not make Pershing safe unless the roadway is redesigned so as not to allow cars to travel at highway speeds.

What’s more, four of the five executive board members — Paula Gerez, Steve Donell, Garrett Smith, and Theresa Torrance are Park donors, having spent thousands of dollars on her campaign. So are many of the commenters who showed up to a Westchester/Playa Neighborhood Council meeting in 2017 to vocalize their opposition to the original Pershing bike lanes, which led to their removal.1 This isn’t to dox these people or say that they’re to blame for any of the deaths that have occurred in the area. But there’s a clear problem here, and again, I’d love to be proven wrong.

It’s not that any one particular safety intervention — like bike lanes on Pershing — would have prevented Regan’s death. Rather, it’s that a culture of slow-walking safety improvements in the name of convenience for a select group of politically-connected local power brokers is unfair and inequitable. This sort of insider dealing weakens our community’s faith in the ability or willingness of government to respond to the needs of the people.

Here’s what will probably happen if we don’t demand accountability: Councilwoman Park will find an excuse not to implement bike lanes and lane reduction on Pershing by smothering the project with endless rounds of community outreach and studies. Then she’ll advocate for more traffic enforcement and policing in the area. When another tragedy happens, the cycle will repeat itself.

To her credit, I really appreciate Traci Park demonstrating a willingness to come out and listen to her constituents. The real test will be whether she acts on it.

In coming weeks, it’s going to be up to Councilwoman Park to have the integrity to unequivocally take a stand for bike lanes and lane reduction on Pershing, even if it means inconveniencing some motorists. This might also involve upsetting some of the firmly-held beliefs of her supporters. But it’s what the majority of her constituents want, and it’s the right thing to do.

On March 1, 2026, CD11 City Council candidates Faizah Malik and Jeremy Wineberg faced off against incumbent Councilmember Traci Park in a race that has come to define the political fault lines of Los Angeles’s Westside. Malik, a housing and civil rights attorney, is running on a platform centered on affordability and tenant protections. Wineberg, an entrepreneur and Palisades fire survivor, entered the race positioning himself as a pragmatic alternative to the incumbent. Park, elected in 2022 after Mike Bonin declined to seek re-election, is defending her seat on a law-and-order message that has resonated with older, more property-owning voters in CD11.

Park came out swinging rhetorically but spent much of her time airing her grievances about Mike Bonin’s tenure, even though he hasn’t been in office since 2022 and isn’t on the ballot. Malik and Wineberg struggled to land clean blows despite sharp contrasts on housing, policing, and infrastructure. In the end, opposition to Park felt more of a unifying factor among the challengers than any affirmative plan for the Westside. Park’s challengers need to lay out a strong and technically-informed vision for the future if they want to gain voters and win the election.

1. Traci Park is obsessed with Mike Bonin, even though he hasn’t appeared on a ballot since 2017 and left office in 2022.

After thanking her staff and the debate’s organizers, Park used a significant portion of her opening statement to rail against her predecessor, Mike Bonin. She bemoaned the state of homelessness in Venice during the COVID-19 pandemic, then rattled off a list of places from which encampments had been removed.

Traci Park and her supporters continuing to complain about Bonin is no different from Donald Trump and the MAGA coalition’s obsession with Joe Biden. This is no surprise, given that Park is a Republican who changed her party affiliation to run for the CD11 office in 2022.

If you were watching the debate with no context, you could fairly come away thinking that Mike Bonin was a despot who ruined the Westside by allowing homelessness to run rampant. But Bonin cruised to victory with 71% of the vote in 2017.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Westsiders were upset at Bonin’s handling of a visible rise in crime and homeless, particularly in Venice. There was a failed recall attempt co-led by Westside politico Nico Ruderman, who poured $10,600 into the effort.

(An aside: Ruderman is a current State Senate candidate and Venice Neighborhood Council board member who helped organize and moderate Sunday’s debate. He’s also a Park donor, having spent $1,000 so far on her 2026 re-election bid.)

Bonin ultimately decided not to run for re-election at the end of his special five-and-a-half-year term in 2022. Traci Park entered the fray on a law-and-order platform. She won her Council seat in a slim majority, capturing 52% of the vote in the 2022 general election against progressive challenger Erin Darling.

So trashing Bonin doesn’t seem like a great strategy for Park, given that some of her supporters probably voted for him. Bonin isn’t on the ballot and hasn’t been in nearly a decade. He hasn’t held office since 2022. It’s time for Traci Park and her supporters to move on.

Yet Bonin remained a central issue. Park maintained her steadfast opposition to supportive housing at Venice Dell, referring to the City Council-approved project as “another Mike Bonin boondoggle”.

Later in the debate, Mike Bonin came up again in the lighting round of questioning.

“This next question was submitted by Traci Park – just kidding! It was submitted by Anonymous” quipped ABC7 reporter Josh Haskell, the debate’s moderator. “Do you think Mike Bonin did a good job during his term?”

Malik reiterated that Mike Bonin is not on the ballot and directly asked Park to stop spreading the false claim that Malik is Bonin’s personal lawyer. Haskell then asked Park directly whether she would continue to incorrectly assert that Malik is Bonin’s personal lawyer.

“She is literally representing Mike Bonin and these boondoggle interests in shakedown lawsuits against the city,” spouted Park, without evidence.

2. Traci Park is articulate but mean.

I went into the debate really hoping to give Park the benefit of the doubt here. Although I personally disagree with many of her policies, I respect her efforts to reach out to her community and represent her constituents. However, Park’s refusal to correct misinformation that she has spread regarding Malik’s relationship with Bonin struck me as distasteful and unprofessional.

This was reinforced during the lightning round of questioning, when Haskell asked each candidate to name a positive quality which they respected about their opponents. Weinberg referred to Faizah a “wonderful woman” and declined to comment towards Park. Malik recognized Wineberg’s role as a Palisades fire survivor and commended Park for fighting for her community.

“I don’t know either one of these individuals,” Park said, when it was her turn to answer. “It takes a lot of courage to run for office. As a first-time candidate for office, I know. I just did this myself three years ago. I left my career as an attorney and took a leave of absence to run a campaign because I am so deeply committed to my community and my city.”

Councilwoman Park, the question asked you to name a positive quality you respect about your opponents.

But it’s worth acknowledging that Park is a skilled orator. During her closing statement, she rose from her seat and directed passionate remarks directly at her supporters. Throughout the debate she appeared technically informed and well prepared. She is probably an amazing attorney. Being able to speak confidently does not make a person a good leader, but it can create the impression of one.

3. There is a stark age and class gap in Westside politics.

If you charted the age distribution of the attendees present, it would probably be a bimodal distribution with peaks at 30 and 70. Except for the candidates themselves, there were few attendees present between the ages of 40 and 60. The First Lutheran Church of Venice was sharply divided, with Park supporters (ironically) seated on the left, and Malik/Wineberg supporters on the right.

Park’s supporters are dominated by traditional the traditional keyholders of Westside power. They are older and more likely to be homeowners, property managers, or landlords. Malik’s faction includes liberal young people and a smattering of aging hippies.

This does not bode well for Malik. Older people are more likely to vote, and (at least anecdotally) have way more time and energy to spend their weekday evenings at neighborhood council meetings fighting oppression in the form of upzoning and bike lanes. Malik’s success will depend on whether she can succeed in getting young Westsiders to the polls.

This will require Malik to appeal to middle-of-the-road young Westside voters who might otherwise be uninterested in politics. Right now, Malik’s most ardent supporters consist of politically in-the-know leftists. That’s not a bad thing, but it’s also not representative of the people who might win her the election.

4. Support for the police remains a contentious issue.

Predictably, the candidates were divided on the issue of policing. Malik pointed out that people continue to feel unsafe, even though crime rates are falling. She also cited the LAPD’s enormous 46% share of the city’s discretionary spending budget. Wineberg fell somewhere in the middle, advocating for alternative solutions to solving problems.

Park said she would “absolutely increase the budget” for police. It’s worth asking, by how much? Would 50% of discretionary spending be enough? Why stop there – why not 75%? Heck, why not just give LAPD the full pie at that point?

The Los Angeles Police Protective League – the police union – donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to underwrite Park’s 2022 campaign. Although they haven’t donated to her 2026 run yet, Park might be expecting another six-figure check for her performance Sunday.

5. Opposition to Traci is more of a unifying issue more than any specific policy.

Neither of the candidates challenging the incumbent appeared to champion a specific policy platform or issue. The fact that Park had the last word certainly didn’t help, although candidates were given a chance to respond to the others’ assertions.

The candidates briefly sparred on Venice Dell, which should be a case-in-point example of the stark differences between Park and her challengers on housing policy.

Malik is literally on the legal paperwork alleging the city is illegally slow-walking Venice Dell. “Some elected officials, acting on bias against the project and the Black, Brown, and disabled low-income and unhoused people it will serve, are pursuing backdoor strategies to thwart those efforts. These actions constitute unlawful discrimination under state fair housing laws” said Malik in a Public Counsel press release. She should have said this directly to Park at the debate.

Malik pointed out that the affordability crisis is driving homelessness crisis and argued for the need to accommodate more affordable housing. She expressed lukewarm support for SB79, which legalizes apartments within a half mile of major transit stops. She described the policy that will unlock more than 1.5 million homes near transit as “good” while emphasizing the importance of community input. Not mentioned was the fact that community input – particularly on the Westside – is dominated by homeowner NIMBYs who do not represent the interests of the majority.

But this is part of the problem with the modern progressive left. All community voices must be heard, and everybody’s views must be considered on every issue before any firm stance can be taken. Although Malik herself supports SB79, her coalition remains divided on the value of upzoning and supply solutions to the housing crisis. There’s a chance I’m wrong here, but a recent UCLA study found that 54% of CD11 residents support building apartments on streets that have single family homes.

Park countered that SB79 was written by politicians in Sacramento that haven’t visited your neighborhood. I can personally attest that this isn’t true. SB79 was passed because a grassroots coalition of Angelenos who called their state legislators from Metro train cars and group bike rides to support more housing near transit.

Ironically, Park claimed that the only way to make rent more affordable is to put an end to “stupid policies” in City Hall. This would have been the perfect time for Malik or Wineberg to launch a zinger about Park’s vociferous opposition to policies that actually make housing affordable, like omitting parking mandates for affordable housing through ED1.

The candidates touched on the topic of safe streets and infrastructure, albeit briefly. Malik argued that we need more accessible transit infrastructure. Wineberg concurred, arguing that the city should follow ADA accessibility requirements. Whereas Malik called out the city’s failure to implement Measure HLA, Park rebutted by stating that HLA eliminates flexibility to engage with communities.

Park also noted – correctly – that HLA would not apply to Pershing Drive where a driver killed a mother and child while cycling in January (the mobility plan’s bike lane cut-off ends just shy of the site of the accident). There was a bike lane installed on Pershing under Mike Bonin, later removed after disgruntled neighbors complained. Still, this was a another major missed opportunity for Wineberg or Malik to directly press Park as to whether she would reinstall the bike lanes on Pershing, and to present themselves as a champion for safer streets and better infrastructure.

Park did pledge to build more bike lanes, which was impressive. One of the goals of our People’s Vision Zero campaign was to reach a point in our local political discourse where candidates are trying to outdo each other on how much bike infrastructure they’ll build. This kind of happened today, but Malik and Wineberg once again missed the chance to counter Park by pointing out that her supporters are often the most vocally opposed to anything that improves cyclist and pedestrian safety at the expense of driver convenience.

This piece was submitted to the Westside Current for publication by Jonathan Hale, a community activist and founder of People’s Vision Zero. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Westside Current.

PLAYA DEL REY — Just outside the Mobil gas station on Pershing Drive, a memorial blooms for Regan Cole-Graham from the asphalt. Cars still fly by at highway speeds, despite the road’s 35-mile-per-hour speed limit.

On January 31, an 87-year-old driver hit Cole-Graham—seven months pregnant with a baby girl—while she was riding a bike with her husband and two sons. A driver hit Cole-Graham from behind and then ran her over in front of her family. The crash resulted in the death of Cole-Graham and her daughter, who was delivered through an emergency C-section at the hospital.

This tragedy wasn’t an accident. The City knew that Pershing Drive and the surrounding streets were dangerous. In 2017, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation installed a “Safe Streets for Playa del Rey” project under Councilmember Mike Bonin. The project included a bike lane on Pershing Drive where Cole-Graham was hit, and other changes to make the streets in the area safer and more accessible for neighborhood residents.

But shortly after the Safe Streets project was implemented, angry opponents of the changes packed into an August 2017 Westchester Playa Neighborhood Council meeting, demanding the council send a letter calling for the immediate removal of the new safety infrastructure

“There was no sudden need to close down lanes on Pershing,” the letter argued, describing bike lanes as “oppressive” and warning that “gas stations cannot achieve minimum sales targets.” A lawsuit by car-advocacy group Keep LA Moving soon followed, asserting that bike lanes posed “significant national security implications” by potentially increasing traffic near LAX.

Feeling a growing amount of legal and political pressure from constituents, Councilmember Mike Bonin caved and removed the road safety improvements on Pershing Drive. Keep LA Moving declared victory in a blog post claiming that the bike lanes “damaged lives and livelihoods.”

As the drama over the safety improvements on Pershing Drive unfolded, the City also installed safety improvements on nearby Vista Del Mar after paying out $9.5M in a wrongful death lawsuit. The suit was filed after a teenager was killed while trying to cross the street. Lawyers conceded that the City had failed to protect beachgoers despite a well-documented history of deadly collisions. The City also reversed these changes, and there is no current plan to make the street safer despite multiple people being killed since.

These safety projects in Playa del Rey were implemented in 2017. Later that same year, they reversed back to their previously dangerous state after objections. One could wonder whether, if the bike lane on Pershing Drive hadn’t been removed, Regan Cole-Graham might still be alive.

Who are our leaders serving? Often, it’s not everyday Angelenos trying to survive in a city where more pedestrians die due to car crashes than murders. Instead, it’s special interests and NIMBYs, whose only desire is to maintain the status quo, and ensure that nothing hinders their ability to drive from point A to point B as quickly as possible.

If the past is prologue, likely this won’t be the last time a pedestrian or cyclist is killed on streets where L.A. previously made safety improvements, only to cancel them when there is opposition.

Councilwoman Park’s milquetoast response to last Saturday’s tragedy makes no mention of the importance of street safety or road design in avoiding crashes. The Councilwoman was one of the strongest opponents of Measure HLA, the ballot measure that passed in 2024 mandating the installation of road safety improvements during routine maintenance. Ironically, if the City were to repave Pershing Drive today, it would again install bike lanes, now required by Measure HLA.

Instead of chalking up the horrific death of a mother on Pershing Drive last week to an accident, Councilwoman Park could wield the power of her office to immediately restore the previously removed safety improvements to Pershing Drive an

d Vista Del Mar—even if that means inconveniencing drivers and angering constituents.

Given this tragedy, and because HLA is now the law, Councilmember Park should work to elevate road safety as a shared priority and take concrete steps to prevent future deaths on Pershing Drive and beyond.

Future road deaths are preventable. But first, we must decide as a city that human life should not be the cost of convenience for a vocal contingent of aggrieved drivers with outsized political and financial capital.

In a Valentine’s Day Traci Park campaign mailer distributed in the wake of Regan’s death, Councilwoman Park says “sleepy sunset bike rides” are one of the things she loves about the Westside. That sentiment rings hollow unless it’s matched by concrete action to ensure her constituents can ride without the risk of being killed.

Today, I had a court hearing regarding my detainment on December 7, 2025, here at this corner for the charge of vandalizing city property by painting a crosswalk.

As of now, the City Attorney’s office has elected not to pursue a criminal case against me.

Our group, People’s Vision Zero, draws its name from Vision Zero: our city’s failed commitment to end traffic violence by 2025. We paint crosswalks where they already legally exist to protest for safer streets and more effective government. That is what I was doing when I was handcuffed by LAPD officers here at this corner.

If our city took its promise of public safety seriously, countless lives could have been saved.

Lives like that of Nadir Gavarrete, a 9-year-old boy who was killed at the corner of 4th and New Hampshire in Koreatown, a corner where the city had plans and funding for a roundabout dating back to 2015, the same year Los Angeles committed to Vision Zero. And yet, nothing was built until we protested unsafe conditions by painting crosswalks at the corner.

The policies that put process over progress have failed the people of Los Angeles and caused countless needless deaths.

We propose that Los Angeles establish a volunteer commission to implement approved improvements to our streets and public infrastructure, and we are working with the city leaders to make this goal a reality. We additionally ask that the mayor’s office publicly recommit to Vision Zero, and establish systems of accountability to ensure that we can successfully eliminate traffic violence.

We are at an inflection point. Now is our chance to make a real, lasting change by challenging the systems that make progress difficult.

This will not be an easy task. But this city was not built by people who looked at the way things are and said “this is good enough”.

I have faith in a brighter future for my fellow Angelenos who call these streets home, and through this process, I believe we can build a better city for all.

We are calling on Angelenos to demand safer streets. This Saturday, January 24 at 10am, we will be attending a die-in on the steps of City Hall to remember the lives lost due to our city’s inability to deliver on the promise of Vision Zero. We hope you’ll join us.

It was never about drugs, and always about oil. But we all knew that. Donald Trump made this clear in a rambling, incoherent address to the nation in the wake of the capture of Venezuela’s dictator, Nicolás Maduro:

“The oil business in Venezuela has been a bust… they were pumping almost nothing,” the American president lamented.

The solution: “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”

It’s unclear which country Trump was referring to.

But let’s suppose decapitating a nation to seize control of their oil market was, like, a normal thing to do. (Is it?) What does our never-ending quest for oil say about our refusal to move into the future as a nation?

This is America we’re talking about, so of course we have a precedent: Iraq.

An objective of Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to general Tommy Franks, was “to secure Iraq’s oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people”.1 This was echoed by longtime US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, in his 2007 memoir: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”2

Suppose it was worth the hundreds of thousands of lost lives and the ensuing power vacuum terrorist petri dish. Did the Iraq war decrease oil prices?

No. Oil prices surged during the time of the Iraq War, ironically due to global uncertainty regarding local instability in Iraq.3 Prices have continued to rise, fueled by demand as more people buy gas-powered cars and by extension the infrastructure systems that enable car dependence.

This never works.

Oil is a finite resource, located in a limited number of locations world wide. Since our control over its supply is limited, our only option is to reduce demand. A true America First domestic security agenda would aim to reduce our reliance on foreign oil by investing in renewable energy and transportation systems.

If we don’t, outcomes like what happened yesterday and in Iraq seem inevitable. With oil, we just don’t have a lot of options.

There’s other ways to power our country’s infrastructure. China has embraced renewable energy in its transportation sector at an breathtaking pace.

First, China is dramatically expanding its solar and wind power infrastructure. China possesses 886.67 GW of installed solar power, dwarfing the United States peak capacity of 139 GW in 2023 as of 2023.4 This is civilization-sustaining power.

Second, China is prioritizing electrification at a national scale.5 Top-down directives make this easy. The message is clear: China will achieve energy independence and generate enough power through renewables to be self-sufficient.

Third, China subsidizes sustainable forms of transportation. The country is home to 90% of the world’s electric buses and subsidizes electric vehicle ownership.6 Bicycles are ubiquitous in cities and the government builds active mobility infrastructure at a large scale.7

There’s a big difference between the U.S. and China: the latter is ruled a dictatorship. We aren’t, or at least not yet.

Regardless, America’s insistence on oil over everything is an example of how our vainglory comes at the expense of our future. We can’t compromise our national security and risk war over our refusal to move past gas, cars, and the internal combustion engine — even if these things might’ve once made America great.

Invading Venezuela won’t bring down oil prices or bring back a past where gas was cheap. The cost of gas will continue to increase as we continue to prop up demand by refusing to seriously invest in renewable energy in transportation.8

We cling to oil because we want to return to an era we can’t go back to and find answers to a problem that can’t be solved. Turns out, we don’t actually need to drill into the ground and extract refined dinosaur juice to fuel and power our machines. There’s a practically infinite source of free energy in the sky — the sun — as well as countless other sources of renewable power that don’t require destabilizing entire regions.

Yesterday’s events are somehow a consequence of both lack of foresight and hindsight. The United States is lagging behind in the global race for a renewable future. Our idleness is a national security and economic failure and will likely cost thousands of lives.

Our nation has the economic muscle and scientific acumen to lead a global transition to renewable energy. Dedicating our country’s resources to developing alternatives to oil should be a priority for the sake of our national security and economy.

In 2015, Los Angeles committed to Vision Zero, pledging to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2025. A decade later, traffic violence has worsened, pedestrian deaths have increased, and Los Angeles has recorded more traffic deaths than homicides in consecutive years. This report examines why Vision Zero has failed, identifying delay, fragmented governance, and a lack of institutional urgency as its primary causes.

In response to these failures, we formed People’s Vision Zero to undertake a campaign of direct action by installing unpermitted but otherwise code-compliant crosswalks at dangerous intersections across Los Angeles. This report documents those efforts and demonstrates that PVZ’s installations conform to applicable state and local standards governing crosswalk design, materials, and placement.

Finally, this report proposes legally viable mechanisms through which the City can authorize community-led, low-cost pedestrian safety interventions while maintaining regulatory oversight, legal compliance, and accountability.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction: When Vision Zero Fails

1.1 The Fatal Consequences of Vision Zero’s Failure

1.2 Traffic Violence in Los Angeles: A Decade of Data

2 Summary of Direct Action

2.1 Strategy and Modus Operandi

2.2 Timeline of Direct Action

2.3 Findings and Implications

2.3.1 Public Pressure, Not Human Consequences, Drives Action

2.3.2 Why Existing Request-Based Systems Fail

2.3.3 Vision Zero Requires Institutional Urgency

3 Legal Standards for Crosswalk Installation

3.1 California Vehicle Code: Pedestrian Rights and Driver Duties

3.2 Statewide Standards for Crosswalk Markings

3.2.1 Crosswalk Dimensions Under State Standards

3.2.2 Crosswalk Placement at Intersections

3.2.3 Materials and Visibility Requirements

3.3 Los Angeles Standards: MPP and TAG

3.3.1 Local Dimensional Standards

3.3.2 Approval Criteria and Threshold Requirements

3.4 Accessibility Law Governing the Public Right-of-Way

3.4.1 Accessibility Law as Obligation, Not Obstruction

3.4.2 ADA-Mandated Detectable Warning Surfaces

3.4.3 The City’s Obligation to Make Mobility Improvements

4 Possible Solutions

4.1 Executive Authorization Pilot Program

4.2 Legal Authority to Perform Road Closures

5 Conclusion

1 Introduction: When Vision Zero Fails

This report aims to test whether our system is serious about ending traffic violence. It summarizes the direct action taken by our organization, People’s Vision Zero, to protest for safer streets and a more effective government by painting unpermitted crosswalks around Los Angeles. Our goal was to see whether the city would understand the urgency of the situation and find ways to support our work or stick to the strategy of kicking the can down the road that has led to countless deaths. In this report, we explain why our work falls entirely within the local and state guidance for crosswalk striping, in addition to following the city’s standards for accessibility. We offer a potential path to legalization through the creation of a department within the mayor’s office overseeing volunteer-led crosswalk painting crews.

It is easy to forget the consequences of Los Angeles’ failure to stop traffic violence. The term is fitting because death by car is violent. After a decade-long failed experiment, because of which thousands of lives were lost, we cannot simply take the city at its word. Now, Los Angeles can demonstrate that it is serious about solving traffic violence and implementing Vision Zero by working with groups doing effective work in collaboration with local communities.

1.1 The Fatal Consequences of Vision Zero’s Failure

On Thursday, July 31st, at around 7:30 pm, Nadir Gavarrete and his brother Carlos were riding two-up on a scooter when they were struck by an RV driver operating under the influence of drugs at the corner of 4th Street and New Hampshire Avenue in Koreatown. Nadir was pronounced dead on the scene. Carlos was hospitalized with serious injuries.

At the northeast corner of the intersection, a stop sign quickly became a makeshift altar. Beneath a photo of Nadir flashing a brilliant smile, mourners arranged an assortment of candles, flowers, and prayer cards. They’d also left stuffed animals, toy trucks, and dinosaur figurines – the sort of stuff nine-year-olds are into. The array of objects was a visceral display of the shattered pieces of a boy’s life cut short (see Figure 1).

The tragedy that occurred at the corner of 4th Street and New Hampshire Avenue is a case study in the city’s ongoing failure to protect the safety of its citizens.

4th Street is a frequently traveled east-west corridor for bikes and scooters passing through some of Los Angeles’ densest neighborhoods. Parallel streets, like Beverly Boulevard, 3rd Street, 6th Street, and Wilshire Boulevard, are wide and fast, with non-drivers squeezed onto narrow, cracked sidewalks. Other alternatives, like 5th Street and 7th Street, are calmer routes but do not connect across town. 4th Street offers a relatively seamless 3.5-mile conduit from La Brea Avenue and the Miracle Mile neighborhood in the east to Hoover Street at the edge of Rampart Village in the west.

That’s probably why the city flagged 4th Street, and specifically the intersection of 4th Street and New Hampshire Avenue, as a target for a bike-friendly streets initiative as shown in Figure 2. This was back in 2011. Before Nadir was even born.

The city secured funding for a roundabout at 4th Street and New Hampshire Avenue in 2015.[2] A pedestrian was hit and injured crossing the street in the unmarked crosswalk at the corner in 2018, according to data from UC Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System.[3] In 2019, the city installed a pop-up roundabout for Bike-to-Work Day made from straw snakes, hay bales, and signage shown in Figure 3 – but removed the installation at the day’s end.[4]

On the day of Nadir’s death, 4th Street looked virtually the same as it did in 2011. A few faded sharrows and green placards every few blocks timidly declared 4th Street as a designated bike route. But these things don’t meaningfully affect how cars drive through the neighborhood.

In the wake of the tragedy, LADOT spokesperson Colin Sweeney stated: “Design work for a neighborhood roundabout, access ramps, and street lighting was completed by LADOT and the Bureau of Engineering in March of this year. The City has begun the contract bidding process, and construction is expected to begin next year.”[6]

In other words, the official response was that frustrated Angelenos should keep following the rules, working through the official channels, and waiting years for overdue improvements. It’s not a stretch to imagine that a concrete roundabout, narrower streets, curb extensions, and other traffic calming measures would have physically prevented an RV from making a left turn across traffic that ultimately led to Nadir Gavarrete’s death. If this incident was not enough to spark a change, what would?

1.2 Traffic Violence in Los Angeles: A Decade of Data

The circumstances that led to Nadir Gavarrete’s death reflect a citywide pattern of deprioritizing pedestrian safety through delay, departmental fragmentation, and lack of seriousness.

In 2015, Mayor Eric Garcetti launched Vision Zero, a plan to eliminate traffic deaths in Los Angeles by 2025.[7] But since then, traffic violence has only gotten worse. Last year, Los Angeles recorded 302 traffic deaths.[8] 170 of those were pedestrians. This marks the second consecutive year that Los Angeles has recorded more traffic deaths than homicides. What’s more, not only did deaths from traffic violence increase since L.A. committed to Vision Zero, but the number of deaths in L.A. grew faster than the national average.[9]

In 2022, the L.A. city council commissioned a consulting firm to perform an audit investigating the first seven years of the city’s implementation of Vision Zero. The audit, which was released in 2025, found a pattern of systemic failures underlying the city’s failure to eliminate traffic deaths. [11]

According to the report, a key reason for Vision Zero’s failure was the lack of political willpower. Successfully implementing Vision Zero required the coordination of efforts across multiple departments. Mayor Garcetti issued an Executive Directive to establish a steering committee of stakeholders to report on Vision Zero’s progress, but the committee stopped meeting without explanation in 2018. Further efforts to end death on L.A.’s streets were hampered by a lack of enthusiasm in City Hall, conflicts of personality, and neighborhood opposition.

The report urges City leadership to fundamentally reassess how Los Angeles implements Vision Zero, emphasizing that traffic deaths will not decline without clearer accountability, stronger coordination, and a paradigm shift in perspective. Leadership is specifically called on to demand transparency and accountability for Vision Zero funds, and lack of long-term coordination across departments. In addition, the report suggests an active role to community organizations, recommending that they mobilize public advocacy around Vision Zero, work alongside City departments to support implementation, and act as a conduit for community input and lived experience.[12]

2 Summary of Direct Action

In May 2025, People’s Vision Zero (PVZ) was founded with the goal of advocating for safer streets and more effective government by painting unpermitted crosswalks at corners around Los Angeles.

PVZ’s work did not take place in a vacuum and would not have been possible without inspiration and support from several individuals and organizations. The Crosswalk Collective (CCLA) has been painting unpermitted crosswalks around the city for several years, and their work informed this project’s scope and execution. PVZ received additional strategic support from the San Francisco Bay Area Bench Collective, a group dedicated to installing public benches at bus stops and advocating for the rights of public transit riders.

The purpose of this project, as the organization’s name suggests, is draw attention to the procedural failures in implementing Vision Zero that have led to countless preventable deaths. PVZ seeks to work in conjunction with city departments to support Vision Zero’s goals and make eliminating traffic violence an institutional priority. Finally, PVZ hopes to elevate the experiences of victims and advocate for systemic change.

2.1 Strategy and Modus Operandi

Painting unpermitted but otherwise code-compliant crosswalks was a way of testing the city’s commitment to process versus outcomes. Indeed, L.A.’s failed implementation of Vision Zero shows that the wheels of city government are slow to turn when it comes to the issue of saving lives by building safer streets. But the issue isn’t that the city is incapable of immediate and unilateral action. To the contrary, the city has consistently demonstrated that it can act quickly to remove crosswalks or reinstall them in response to political pressure. PVZ sought to publicly prove this point and redirect the city’s attention to solving the problem at hand, namely, ending traffic violence.

For several years, LADOT and CCLA had engaged in a protracted game of whack-a-mole: CCLA would paint crosswalks at dangerous intersections, and LADOT would remove them. On one occasion, CCLA members were cited by police for vandalism for painting crosswalks without official authorization.[13] PVZ’s efforts were intended to examine the extent to which the city would actively defend procedural norms that, in practice, have coincided with hundreds of preventable deaths since Los Angeles adopted its Vision Zero commitment.

Painting was limited to crosswalks at the intersections of residential roads with signalized crossings and existing curb cuts. There was an abundance of potential corners: data from UC Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System shows that between 2015 and 2025, the period during which Vision Zero was intended to be implemented, more than 10,000 pedestrians were struck by vehicles in crosswalks alone.[14] Materials were chosen to mirror commonly used roadway marking materials in compliance with California code.

These efforts were not intended as permanent infrastructure improvements, but rather as interim measures highlighting locations where existing processes had failed to produce timely safety interventions. Would the city act unilaterally to remove crosswalks otherwise installed in compliance with state and local standards, but without official permission? And would the city act with urgency to support PVZ’s work, or would it exhibit the same lack of political enthusiasm that has stalled life-saving pedestrian safety improvements during the past decade?

2.2 Timeline of Direct Action

The first corners that PVZ painted were those abutting Stoner Park in Sawtelle. Starting on Saturday, May 24, and continuing over four consecutive Saturdays, PVZ marked the crosswalks serving park access at four intersections: Stoner Avenue and Nebraska Avenue; Stoner Avenue and Missouri Avenue; Missouri Avenue and South Westgate Avenue; and South Westgate Avenue and Nebraska Avenue. Stoner Park’s athletic fields, rec center, and public pool make it a popular third space for children and families, as well as the location of several summer camps. Multiple neighborhood schools use the park’s facilities. Yet despite the high volume of pedestrian traffic, there were no marked crosswalks leading to Stoner Park prior to PVZ’s work.

On July 22, the Westside Current, a local paper, published a story on the group of Sawtelle residents who added DIY markings at the intersection around Stoner Park, spending several Saturdays with paint and stencils to highlight pedestrian safety needs.[15] Local news outlets flocked to Stoner Park to report on the crosswalks, which by that time had been in place for almost two months. Yet on July 25th, just 72 hours after the publication of the Westside Current story, a city crew removed the crosswalks. This prompted more news coverage and widespread backlash on social media. CD 11 Councilwoman Traci Park, who represents the area, said she’d asked for the crosswalks to be kept in place.[16]

On July 31, the mayor’s office committed to expeditiously reinstall the crosswalks it had removed at Stoner Park. Later that same day, Nadir Gavarrete was killed at the intersection of 4th Street and New Hampshire Avenue. Two days later, on August 2, while crews were installing official crosswalks at Stoner Park, members of CCLA and PVZ painted unpermitted crosswalks at 4th Street and New Hampshire Avenue across the city.

The sequence of events led to a September meeting with the mayor’s office and leaders from Council District 10, which encompasses the corner where Nadir was killed. Council District 10 representatives acted quickly to establish a partnership and have since installed official crosswalks and a miniature traffic circle at 4th Street and New Hampshire Avenue shown in Figure 5, with plans to expedite the installation of a full-sized roundabout.

The mayor’s office reiterated that citizen-painted crosswalks were illegal and therefore impermissible in an email sent on October 10th. They suggested an openness to collaborate, stating that “we will explore ways to formalize a community partnership program focused on Vision Zero and neighborhood traffic safety.” Yet the mayor’s office made no effort to follow through on its offer of collaboration, displaying the same lack of urgency that led to Vision Zero’s failure.

In the meantime, PVZ continued to mark unpermitted crosswalks at corners across the city. In advance of each installation, PVZ notified the mayor’s office by email of the time and location where volunteer crews would be present and temporarily opening the roadway to pedestrians. These communications consistently stated that the activity would cease if the city demonstrated urgency in addressing traffic violence by taking concrete steps to improve street safety. On December 7, I was detained and cited for vandalism while leading a group of PVZ volunteers to mark a crosswalk at the intersection of Wilkins Avenue and Kelton Avenue.

2.3 Findings and Implications

The saga illustrates a few key points. First, the project proved that the city is entirely capable of acting quickly but is motivated principally by political pressure. Second, obscure processes and departmental fragmentation limit community input, making it difficult for Angelenos to receive services from their government. Third, ending traffic violence and implementing Vision Zero requires prioritizing the issue and acting with urgency.

2.3.1 Public Pressure, Not Human Consequences, Drives Action

Councilwoman Park’s acknowledgment that she had advocated for the Stoner Park crosswalks to remain in place, together with internal discussions between LADOT and members of the West LA–Sawtelle Neighborhood Council, demonstrates that City officials were aware of the crosswalks well before their removal. The Stoner Park crosswalks remained in place for nearly two months without intervention. They were removed only after widespread media coverage brought renewed attention to their existence.

Following the removal, flyers were posted around Stoner Park encouraging neighbors to contact local elected officials. Media coverage intensified, and public criticism was swift. Shortly thereafter, the city installed new crosswalks at Stoner Park. The timing of this action suggests that the decision to reinstall the crosswalks was driven less by newly identified safety concerns than by the public and media backlash that followed their removal. “If the people did not paint, the government would not have come out and done what they should have done themselves,” said Audree, a Sawtelle resident, in an NBC interview.[17]

2.3.2 Why Existing Request-Based Systems Fail

LADOT has instructed Angelenos who want safety and infrastructure improvements to request them through 311 or by contacting their local city council representative.[18] Yet in a comment to the LA Times, Dan Halden, the acting director of external relations for the Bureau of Street Services, stated the following: “The Bureau of Street Services (StreetsLA) primarily uses our annual resurfacing program to determine the locations of access ramps that we design and install; we do not work off a request-based system” (emphasis added).[19]

Taken together, these contradictory statements illustrate a fundamental disconnect between the City’s public-facing guidance and its internal decision-making processes. Residents are directed to pursue safety improvements through request-based channels, but key decisions are made through esoteric processes that operate independently of public input. This obscures accountability and explains why inadequate pedestrian infrastructure can go neglected for years despite repeated requests, documented harm, and clear community concern.

2.3.3 Vision Zero Requires Institutional Urgency

If the city fails to act with a sustained sense of urgency, more lives will be needlessly lost on Los Angeles streets. Political pressure and media attention should not be the primary catalysts for safety interventions. Preventing traffic violence and maintaining public safety should be a baseline function of municipal governance. City leadership must be willing to act proactively to reduce harm, rather than reactively in response to public outcry.

After the September meeting with the mayor’s office, repeated communications to the mayor’s office outlining specific safety concerns and proposed interim measures went unanswered for nearly two months. During that period, no explanation was provided regarding the City’s decision-making process in removing the Stoner Park crosswalks or timeline for action. The mayor’s office has since engaged in dialogue, contacting me directly following my detainment. We are prepared to engage in constructive dialogue moving forward.

However, the initial delay underscores the lack of enthusiasm that led to Vision Zero’s failure. The issue is not limited to the current administration but extends across multiple administrative departments since the city’s commitment to Vision Zero in 2015. Vision Zero must be a top priority for city leadership if Los Angeles is to succeed in its goal of ending traffic violence. Making progress will require accountability and consistency, and lives are at stake.

3 Legal Standards for Crosswalk Installation

Multiple sets of regulations at the state and local levels provide the procedures and specifications for installing official crosswalks. This section of the report aims to provide a technical overview of the legal authority controlling crosswalk striping and demonstrate that PVZ’s work complies with state regulations and local standards.

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) serves as the statutory authority over the operation and maintenance of California’s roadways. This body of law establishes the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), which governs how crosswalks should be painted. At the local level, LADOT’s Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) and Transportation Assessment Guidelines (TAG) provide separate guidelines and procedures for installing crosswalks in Los Angeles.

Finally, this report will discuss the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I’ll outline the standards for ADA-compliant crosswalks, then demonstrate that the city regularly violates them. If our crosswalks are ADA-compliant, then the city should allow us to install them; if they are not, then the city routinely violates ADA law. Ultimately, ADA should be used as a tool to help individuals with disabilities achieve more equitable outcomes, rather than as an obstacle to implementing reasonable solutions.

We seek to demonstrate that given official authorization, we can install code-compliant crosswalks at roadways with minimal risk to the city. The legal standards set at the local, state, and federal levels establish a coherent set of standards governing crosswalk installation. This section clarifies that crosswalk striping is governed by objective, technical specifications that are well within the PVZ’s capabilities and the city’s existing administrative capacity. PVZ’s installations comply, or can readily be brought into compliance, with these requirements, and providing official authorization would pose minimal legal risk. As such, there exists a lawful and collaborative pathway to accelerate pedestrian safety improvements while maintaining consistency with established standards and accessibility obligations.

3.1 California Vehicle Code: Pedestrian Rights and Driver Duties

The California Vehicle Code (CVC) is the foundational legal framework governing traffic behavior, pedestrian rights, and the authority of state and local agencies over California’s roadways. It establishes the rules that define when and where pedestrians may cross, the duties imposed on drivers, and the circumstances under which cities may install and regulate traffic control devices. The CVC makes clear that many pedestrian rights and driver obligations exist independently of roadway markings, underscoring that paint and signage do not create legal rights but rather give visible expression to preexisting ones.

CVC § 275(a) defines a crosswalk as “That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.”[20] In other words, crosswalks exist at every intersection of perpendicular roadways – regardless of whether they are marked. The physical presence of lines on the asphalt across an intersection doesn’t create a crosswalk; it just marks where one already exists.

CVC § 21950(a) states that “The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.”[21] Both pedestrians and drivers are instructed to use due care for their own safety and the safety of others. Marking a crosswalk doesn’t create any new legal rights or obligations. Rather, the purpose of marking crosswalks is to advise motorists of their pre-existing legal obligations.

CVC § 21400 provides for the adoption of uniform traffic control devices, including any markings on the roadway.[22] This is the core provision authorizing the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to adopt a manual and specifications for traffic control devices in California – the CA MUTCD. Subsequently, CVC § 21401 clarifies that “only those official traffic control devices that conform to the uniform standards and specifications promulgated by the Department of Transportation shall be placed upon a street or highway”.[23] Moreover, CVC § 21465 adds that “No person shall place, maintain, or display upon, or in view of, any highway any unofficial sign, signal, device, or marking, or any sign, signal, device, or marking which purports to be or is an imitation of, or resembles, an official traffic control device or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic or which hides from view any official traffic control device.”[24]

PVZ’s unofficial crosswalks do not change the legal obligations of drivers or pedestrians because we are merely marking crosswalks where they legally already exist. Still, they are in violation of state law because they are unofficial. Indeed, the mayor’s office confirmed as much in an email on October 10, writing that “unauthorized markings can violate California Vehicle Code Section 21465, so all changes must go through the City’s formal review and approval process”. But suppose PVZ’s crosswalks were legally authorized by the powers that be. Do they hold up to code? The next section of this report will review the state and local codes that govern the standards for crosswalk installation.

3.2 Statewide Standards for Crosswalk Markings

The CA MUTCD, a thrilling 1450-page tome, provides guidelines for the installation of crosswalks. An analysis of the standards set forth within shows that PVZ’s crosswalks are compliant with CA MUTCD requirements.

3.2.1 Crosswalk Dimensions Under State Standards

The CA MUTCD offers clear guidance on marked crosswalk dimensions: “When crosswalk lines are used, they shall consist of solid white lines that mark the crosswalk. They shall not be less than 12 inches or greater than 24 inches in width.”[25] For continental crosswalks, the CA MUTCD instructs that “the crosswalk width should not be less than 6 feet.”[26] PVZ’s stencil measures 6 feet in length and 24 inches in width, dimensions entirely within the parameters set by the CA MUCTD.

3.2.2 Crosswalk Placement at Intersections

Regarding placement of crosswalk markings, the CA MUTCD emphasizes CVC § 275, which provides that a legal crosswalk is the extension of a sidewalk across the roadway. Crosswalk markings “may be placed at intersections, representing extensions of the sidewalk lines.”[27]

The CA MUTCD suggests that in general, “crosswalks should not be marked at intersections unless they are intended to channelize pedestrians.”[28] But the CA MUTCD provides general guidance, not a binding mandate. As such, the need to channelize pedestrians is not a prerequisite to the installation of a marked crosswalk. But drivers are legally obligated to yield to pedestrians in unmarked crosswalks per CVC § 275 anyway, so marking crosswalks in front of stop signs channelizes pedestrians towards crossing points where they have the legal right-of-way.

The CA MUTCD recommends consideration of a number of factors for crosswalk placement: vehicular approach speeds from both directions, vehicular volume and density, vehicular turning movements, pedestrian volumes, roadway width, day and night visibility by both pedestrians and road users, desirability of channelization to clarify pedestrian routes for sighted or sight impaired pedestrians, discouragement of pedestrian use of undesirable routes, consistency with markings at adjacent intersections or within the same intersection.[29] Many of these considerations overlap with the local standards of LADOT TAG, covered in the next section. Yet, like the use of crosswalks as a device for channelizing pedestrians, these are merely factors for consideration – not a mandate.

3.2.3 Materials and Visibility Requirements

The CA MUTCD sets reasonable technical requirements for maintaining the retroreflectivity of pavement markings such as lane lines on roadways, signage, and stop lines. Certain markings are specifically exempt, namely, markings on streets with average daily traffic (ADT) of less than 6,000 vehicles.[30] LADOT’s Traffic Counts Summary, last updated in 2020, provides point-in-time counts of vehicle travel at intersections across the city. A quick analysis shows that traffic volumes on residential streets may be higher when those streets run parallel to major thoroughfares.

First, consider the corner of 4th Street and New Hampshire Avenue. On January 11, 2011, 8,640 vehicles traveled east-west on 4th Street, while on June 8, 2011, 18,701 vehicles traveled north-south on New Hampshire Avenue.[31] The staggering volume of traffic can be explained by the fact that these residential streets serve as local alternatives for cars avoiding traffic on 3rd Street and Vermont Avenue respectively.

Or consider the corner of 8th Street and Cloverdale Avenue, where we painted crosswalks after a woman was seriously injured and her dog killed in a hit-and-run in broad daylight.[32] On May 16, 2013, 8,387 vehicles traveled east-west on 8th Street at Cloverdale Avenue.[33] On June 13, 2013, 2,066 vehicles traveled east-west on 9th Street at Cloverdale Avenue, just a block south.[34] This drop-off in traffic can be explained by the fact that 8th Street serves as a primary cut-through for cars seeking to avoid traffic on Wilshire Boulevard a block north.

The high traffic volume on these residential streets may be anomalous. These are point-in-time data, not averages, after all. But the sheer number of vehicles traveling on residential streets parallel to wider thoroughfares supports the case that without meaningful changes to the design of our roadways, cars will continue to speed through neighborhoods to avoid traffic. Our city’s failure to address this problem has fatal consequences. Most residential intersections from the LADOT’s traffic counts have point-in-time vehicle counts of far less than 6,000 vehicles. But regardless, ADT is not the only criterion for triggering exemptions to the CA MUTCD’s retroreflectivity requirements.

The CA MUTCD expressly exempts non-longitudinal pavement markings, including crosswalk markings, from the minimum retroreflectivity requirements set forth in Section 3A.03.[35] The manual does not establish separate minimum retroreflectivity standards for crosswalk markings, including enhanced or continental-style crosswalks. This regulatory ambiguity affords local agencies discretion to exceed minimum requirements when addressing documented safety risks. However, it does not impose retroreflectivity standards for crosswalks like those painted by People’s Vision Zero.

In Section 3A.04, the CA MUTCD provides specific guidance on materials that should be applied to pavement on public roadways. Whereas thermoplastic is widely used, it is not specifically required. Paint is an acceptable substitute.[36] Accordingly, the crosswalks installed by People’s Vision Zero fall within the CA MUTCD’s standards governing both materials and retroreflectivity. Although more robust interventions would be more effective in preventing injuries and deaths, our efforts represent the minimum action permitted within the existing legal framework.

3.3 Los Angeles Standards: MPP and TAG

At the local level, LADOT’s Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) provides criteria for where a marked crosswalk can be added. The guidelines state that marked crosswalks may be installed at locations satisfying CVC §275 where “pedestrian crossings are frequent and the warning devices associated with the marked crosswalk will so advise motorists”.[37] Indeed, the MPP makes clear that the purpose of a marked crosswalk is to alert drivers to legal crosswalks where they exist. A marked crosswalk “emphasizes the legal crosswalk” at controlled intersections, such as in front of a stop sign.[38]

Standard marked crosswalks – the default for residential streets – should consist of transverse parallel lines, 12 inches wide and 15 feet or 10 feet apart, with a minimum width of 10 feet. Continental crosswalks, which consist of a series of longitudinal bars across the width of the intersection, are to be used at uncontrolled crossings on arterial streets or high-volume collector streets.[39]

3.3.1 Local Dimensional Standards

The MPP references the CA MUTCD for exact crosswalk dimensions but provides its own guidelines for continental crosswalks at signalized approaches. The MPP suggests, but does not mandate, that typical continental crosswalks are 15 feet wide “but may vary according to site conditions.”[40] Continental crosswalks should be installed according to guidelines “unless otherwise indicated on a signed plan.”[41] The language is not binding, and leaves open a legal window for a signed plan authorizing civilian-painted crosswalks painted according to CA MUTCD standards.

The MPP requires a five-foot buffer between the crosswalk marking and the stop line. At many residential four-way stops in Los Angeles, the stop line is placed immediately behind the legally defined crosswalk created by the extension of the sidewalk into the roadway under CVC § 275. As a result, installing a 15-foot-wide continental crosswalk in compliance with MPP specifications typically requires the existing stop line to be removed and set farther back from the intersection. This additional scope substantially increases the complexity of the work and may help explain why LADOT often does not undertake these installations itself.

3.3.2 Approval Criteria and Threshold Requirements

Once an intersection satisfies the dimensional and placement requirements set forth in the MPP, LADOT’s Transportation Assessment Guidelines (TAG) section A-27 governs whether a marked crosswalk may be installed. Under TAG section A, an intersection must first satisfy baseline threshold criteria before enhanced markings may be considered. Baseline conditions under TAG include the following: [42]

· Sight distance and visibility: Motorists must be able to observe pedestrians preparing to cross from a distance determined by the posted speed limit. This requirement is typically addressed through daylighting zones that prohibit parking near intersections to prevent sight obstructions.

· Minimum pedestrian volume: The location must experience at least 20 pedestrian units during a one-hour period on any day of the week. For purposes of this count, children under 13, adults over 64, persons pushing strollers, and persons with disabilities are counted as two pedestrian units each.

· Spacing between intersections: The proposed crosswalk must be located a minimum distance from adjacent signalized intersections, depending on speed. On roadways with speed limits between 25 and 30 miles per hour, this distance is 195 feet.

· Queue spillback: Vehicle queuing may not spill into the proposed crosswalk location. Any observed or documented queue spillback must be addressed prior to, or in conjunction with, crosswalk installation.

· Curb ramp accessibility: ADA-accessible curb ramps must be present at both ends of the proposed crosswalk. Where curb ramps are not technically feasible, the requirement may be waived upon a finding by the Department on Disability that a marked crosswalk without ramps constitutes a reasonable accommodation.

In addition to these baseline conditions, TAG section B requires that the proposed location satisfy at least one pedestrian volume criterion.[43] This requirement may be met by demonstrating either: (1) a pedestrian volume of 40 or more pedestrian units during any one-hour period, or (2) a pedestrian volume of 30 or more pedestrian units during each of two separate one-hour periods on any day of the week.

Alternatively, TAG allows the installation of a marked crosswalk regardless of pedestrian volume where the crosswalk would serve a specific functional purpose, including clarifying pedestrian routes at complex intersections, channelizing pedestrians along shorter or safer paths, improving pedestrian visibility, consolidating crossing locations, or providing a needed crossing where no legal crossing exists within 315 feet.[44]

Additional requirements apply to crosswalks at stop-controlled intersections under TAG section E. In such locations, ADA-accessible curb ramps are required, and at least one of the following conditions must be satisfied: documented pedestrian collision history, facilitation of access to a business district or school route, or demonstrated pedestrian volume consistent with TAG thresholds.[45]

It quickly becomes evident how inaction is not only excusable but justified. Let’s imagine a couple scenarios:

1. A child is killed crossing a residential street at a legal but unmarked crosswalk along a popular route to school. There is a high volume of pedestrian foot traffic, and the city has the budget to perform an official study. However, when the LADOT-contracted inspector arrives at the site, he notices that the crosswalk is blocked by a buildup of cars waiting to turn onto a nearby boulevard. Per TAG section A(d), a crosswalk cannot be installed without first fixing the traffic problem. The project is shelved and eventually forgotten.

2. Two pedestrians are hit and seriously injured at a residential intersection within a recent 12-month period. The intersection abuts a park, and there is a high volume of pedestrian foot traffic. Unfortunately, the city does not have the budget to perform a study of pedestrian volume. The corner also lacks ADA-compliant curb cuts, the installation of which would add tens of thousands of dollars to the project.

What constitutes success? In both scenarios, the bureaucracy functions “successfully” insofar as it adheres to process. Installing a crosswalk would require violating LADOT’s own rules. Yet it would be hard to call these outcomes successful to the members of the community impacted. Besides, even if a proposed location meets all the TAG requirements, the guidelines unequivocally state that “the satisfaction of guideline(s) shall not in itself require the installation of a marked crosswalk.”[46]

3.4 Accessibility Law Governing the Public Right-of-Way

When cities perform roadway maintenance, they must do so in compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which imposes an affirmative obligation on public entities to operate their programs, services, and activities in a manner that is readily accessible to individuals with disabilities.[47] The ADA is a civil rights law designed to eliminate barriers to access and plays a critical role in providing legal accountability. It should not be used as a procedural veto that justifies inaction. Safety improvements that will ostensibly benefit individuals with disabilities are never completed not because they would violate ADA, but because ADA compliance has become a part of a broader culture of institutional risk avoidance.

The Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), which courts and the Department of Justice routinely rely on to assess ADA compliance in pedestrian facilities, provide technical specifications for accessibility. PROWAG requires that “Curb ramps located at crosswalks shall have detectable warning surfaces.”[48] This entails the installation of a pad with domed protrusions detectable by individuals with visual impairments. None of the crosswalks at corners where PVZ has painted have detectable warning surfaces; however, PVZ’s work is limited to corners with existing curb ramps.

It is worth noting that the city has not cited ADA compliance as the stated rationale for removing PVZ crosswalks in any official communication. Nonetheless, ADA concerns are often implicitly or explicitly invoked to justify inaction in similar contexts. This report will argue that if ADA liability is a reason for prohibiting our work, then the city should act with gusto to improve the livability of its infrastructure for individuals with disabilities. If it does not do so immediately, then ADA concerns do not hold water.

3.4.1 Accessibility Law as Obligation, Not Obstruction

Moreover, the idea that ADA liability would be a reason not to permit crosswalks otherwise compliant to state and local codes reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that individuals with disabilities interact with their lived environment. This project was started in part due to conversations with neighbors living with visual impairments. To these Angelenos, any measure taken to alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians in a legal crosswalk improves safety. People do not cross the street because there is a marked crosswalk, they cross the street because they need to get to where they are going. The purpose of the marked crosswalk is to provide drivers a reminder of their obligation to yield to pedestrians. To understand why marked crosswalks are a critical safety upgrade for individuals with visual impairments, skeptical traffic engineers can replicate the experience by crossing any Los Angeles street blindfolded.

If the absence of detectable warning surfaces is truly a liability issue, then the city should work in collaboration with PVZ to install them at community-painted crosswalks. Doing so would allow the city to save money on ADA compliance while supporting PVZ’s efforts. This certainly does not explain why the city removed PVZ’s crosswalks at Stoner Park. Did the addition of otherwise code-compliant crosswalk markings make the intersection less ADA-compliant than it already was? Did removing the crosswalk markings help people with disabilities?

3.4.2 ADA-Mandated Detectable Warning Surfaces

As previously mentioned, LADOT’s TAG mandates ADA-accessible curb ramps at both ends of the proposed crosswalk. Thus, the non-existence of curb ramps becomes a rationale for making no further improvements. Under the city’s implicit interpretation of ADA, if compliant curb ramps do not already exist, the crosswalk cannot be installed. This fits a pattern of inaction used to justify having to provide for the needs of individuals with disabilities. Los Angeles thus routinely neglects infrastructure maintenance in a manner that allows it to shirk its responsibilities to individuals with disabilities. This not only exposes the city to future liability risk but hurts the people who are often at greatest risk of becoming victims of traffic violence.

And yet, the city installs crosswalks without simultaneously installing detectable warning surfaces at the curb ramps. It did so when it installed new, official crosswalks at Stoner Park, and at the corner of 4th Street and New Hampshire Avenue. Either the installation of crosswalks does not actually necessitate the installation of detectable warning surfaces, or the city judged that it was politically expedient to violate ADA guidelines to deliver results quickly in response to backlash. In any case, the city regularly installs crosswalks without adding any curb ramps at all as a matter of practice[49]. The city cannot invoke ADA compliance as a reason for prohibiting PVZ’s work when it already tolerates noncompliance and regularly alters the public right-of-way without upgrading accessibility. Given that PVZ follows the city’s own murky standard, ADA objections to low-cost safety interventions ring hollow.

3.4.3 The City’s Obligation to Make Mobility Improvements

Cities like Los Angeles certainly have valid concerns regarding the installation of ADA-compliant infrastructure. First, that it is expensive. The Bureau of Street Services (BSS) has reported that a single ADA-compliant access ramp costs at least $50,000 to install.[50] Since a crosswalk must be installed with ADA-compliant ramps at both ends, the cost of ADA compliance for a single crosswalk leg is at least $100,000. To install four ADA-compliant access ramps at an intersection would cost $200,000. A 2021 CalTrans memo estimates that a single crosswalk leg costs between $750 and $2,600.[51] At bare minimum, the cost of installing four crosswalk legs with ADA-compliant ramps at a single intersection is $203,000. This is a conservative estimate which excludes the cost of performing LADOT’s prerequisite pedestrian volume study.

Los Angeles is already required to spend money to bring its sidewalks and curb ramps up to ADA standard. As part of the 2016 settlement in Willits v. City of Los Angeles – a record-setting class action brought by individuals with mobility impairments – the City agreed to commit approximately $1.4 billion over thirty years to improve accessibility in the public right-of-way.[52] The conditions of the settlement agreement specifically require the city to prioritize the installation of curb ramps, and to upgrade existing curb ramps to meet the latest ADA standards.[53] In its defense, the City argued that it lacked sufficient funds to finance mobility improvements; the court rejected this argument.[54]

Nonetheless, the city continues to avoid installation of ADA-required infrastructure when it performs routine street resurfacing work.[55] Going even further, the city has effectively stopped resurfacing its streets since July, presumably to get out of ADA compliance requirements.[56] Legally flimsy workarounds to ADA obligations only set the city up for a death spiral of future liability payouts from deficient pedestrian infrastructure. To use ADA accessibility as the rationale for prohibiting PVZ from painting crosswalks that are otherwise in compliance with legal standards is both hypocritical and harmful to individuals with disabilities.

4 Possible Solutions

Given the stakes of the status quo, city leaders should make re-implementing Vision Zero a top priority. Nobody wants traffic violence to continue, and it is easy for city leaders to ambiguously suggest that they support Vision Zero’s goal safer streets. However, promises without a tangible, results-driven commitment to action will be ineffective. The problem transcends administrations and institutions. Pedestrian deaths on our city streets have steadily increased since Los Angeles committed to Vision Zero a decade ago. Nonetheless, the present moment presents a unique opportunity for the city to demonstrate its commitment to ending traffic violence by implementing creative solutions – like working with PVZ to decriminalize volunteer-led crosswalk painting.

PVZ’s work alone will not end traffic violence. Such a goal will require the mobilization of vast city resources and institutions. How the city responds will be a litmus test of their sense of urgency to addressing the problem at hand. Here, we present an outline of possible legal mechanisms that would allow PVZ to continue operating as a citizen-led traffic safety corps under the auspices of an existing branch of government. Working in collaboration with city officials with relevant expertise will be instrumental in making this a reality. Permitting PVZ’s work would allow the mayor’s office to tout new crosswalks painted as community celebrations by groups of volunteers, empowering Angelenos to improve their neighborhoods and furthering a key promise.

From late May to early December, I have participated in painting 14 corners across the city of Los Angeles. An example of our work at the corner of Clarington Avenue and Tabor Street in Palms is shown in Figure 6. A pace of 20 corners per year is realistic, with the possibility of rapidly scaling up our operation once the infrastructure is established. Each corner costs about $100, paid for by community donors. We are therefore advocating for whatever legal mechanism allows us to continue our work unimpeded at our current pace, for minimal additional cost. This report does not argue for the elimination of standards or oversight. Instead, it proposes narrowly tailored mechanisms that allow the city to authorize rapid, low-cost safety interventions while retaining full regulatory control, legal compliance, and accountability.

4.1 Executive Authorization Pilot Program

The city is financially burdened and lacks staff capacity to actively paint crosswalks throughout neighborhoods on a regular basis. A potential solution is to create a pilot program through the mayor’s office. This would act as a 12-month pilot initiative coordinating existing departments to allow teams of volunteers to paint a crosswalk to specification at certain locations. Supervising engineers from city departments such as, but not limited to, LADOT, would serve on-standby to do a weekly inspection of any locations painted. A pilot program spearheaded with executive authorization through the mayor’s office would be limited in scope, temporary, and revocable, thus granting maximum flexibility and minimal political risk.

The mayor’s office already possesses the executive authority to direct city departments, convene interdepartmental task forces, and establish pilot programs aligned with adopted city policies. It would be possible to quickly permit PVZ’s work through executive action without city ordinance, council vote, or charter amendment. PVZ’s work would be limited to residential corners with four-way stops where crosswalks already exist, leaving the legal obligations of pedestrians and drivers unchanged. Closing the street to paint crosswalks would bring neighbors together, promote civic pride, and improve pedestrian safety. The mayor would be able to take due credit for empowering communities and working with PVZ to implement creative solutions to end traffic violence.

4.2 Legal Authority to Perform Road Closures

Streets are routinely closed for community events such as block parties. Per the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), a community event is something which “promotes civic pride in the City or in a local community within the City, that is not a commercial event, all net proceeds of which, if any, will directly benefit either a charitable or non- profit organization.”[58] PVZ’s work is not of a commercial nature and brings together Angelenos to make improvements to their neighborhood. Under the LAMC, Los Angeles already has a permitting system that allows for temporary street closures with coordinated traffic safety measures. The city accepts temporary liability exposure by closing the street for community events, and the risk is negligible. Authorization for street closures for community events is feasible, and PVZ’s paint parties meet the criteria.

As such, hosting community block parties with the goal of empowering neighborhoods to improve pedestrian safety would provide a window into legalizing PVZ’s work. At present, each block is closed for a maximum of one hour, rotating by blocked segment as each crosswalk leg is painted. Paint parties take place on weekend mornings. The scope of work is limited to crosswalk striping to California state standards. PVZ’s paint parties bring together neighbors, many of whom are happy to see improvements being made to their communities at dangerous intersections. Furthering the legitimization of PVZ’s work would only benefit the community, allowing neighbors to enjoy the open street and engage with Vision Zero in a public manner. Precedent already exists for road closures, and allowing PVZ to close streets to paint crosswalks fits within the current legal framework. If the City can temporarily close streets for block parties and farmers’ markets, it can do so to install life-saving pedestrian infrastructure under controlled conditions.

5 Conclusion

Vision Zero did not fail because Los Angeles lacks technical standards, legal authority, or funding mechanisms. Rather, Vision Zero failed – and thousands of people lost their lives – because of an institutional lack of urgency and enthusiasm. This problem transcends any one administration or institution. By 2025, Los Angeles was supposed to have eliminated traffic deaths. Yet as the year draws to a close, we must now seriously reconsider what we can do to act with urgency to improve public safety and end violence on our streets.

The death of Nadir Gavarrete and the Stoner Park crosswalks illustrate a recurring pattern. Known safety risks persist for years without intervention, action only occurs after media attention or political pressure, and the city can act quickly but chooses not to absent external pressure. People’s Vision Zero was created in response to these failures. Here, we propose that the city reexamine its commitment to Vision Zero and demonstrate its seriousness by collaborating in partnership with us to decriminalize our work.

State and local law clearly define crosswalks, pedestrian rights, and driver obligations independent of markings. PVZ’s installations comply with the technical specifications governing crosswalk design, materials, and placement. Accessibility law, meanwhile, imposes affirmative obligations on the city but does not prohibit incremental safety improvements. Invoking ADA compliance as a rationale for inaction is inconsistent with both the law and the City’s own practices.

PVZ’s work is intended to serve as a diagnostic tool, not an act of defiance. We do not believe in tearing down local institutions of governance. Rather, we hope this project will empower city leaders to implement policies that will allow government workers to do the jobs they signed up for: namely, making Los Angeles a better city for all. This project demonstrated the divergence between policy goals and operational reality. Fixing this problem would benefit not only city workers, but the health and well-being of the people of Los Angeles.

Now, city leadership faces a critical juncture. Los Angeles can continue to rely on slow, opaque processes that have coincided with rising fatalities. Or it can treat traffic violence as an emergency requiring urgency, experimentation, and accountability. We have sought to demonstrate in this report that the city already possesses lawful mechanisms to act without sacrificing oversight or standards. Executive authorization pilot programs can formalize community-led safety interventions. Additionally, existing permitting frameworks for community events provide a lawful basis for temporary street closures.

Collaboration with volunteer groups like People’s Vision Zero offers a low-cost, scalable complement to traditional projects. These approaches do not replace long-term infrastructure investments; they add to them. Our work not only improves pedestrian safety, brings people together to share pride in community. We believe that fostering a sense of civic pride and collective care for our lived environment will help bring about a more just and livable future.

Ultimately, Vision Zero cannot succeed as a symbolic commitment or aspirational slogan. Ending traffic violence requires institutional urgency, willingness to act, and accountability for inaction. Every delay carries a human cost. The question is no longer whether Los Angeles has the tools to act, but whether it has the will.

Appendix

This report is available as a PDF. Some citations may have been modified when copying to Substack. Please message me if you would like to see the original.

[1] City of Los Angeles, Dep’t of City Planning & Dep’t of Transp., Bicycle Plan Implementation Quarterly Report: August–November 2011, Attachment 2, Active Bikeways Projects (as of Nov. 30, 2011) (Dec. 14, 2011).

[2] Maylin Tu, “People Are Painting Crosswalks Across L.A. to Protect Pedestrians,” Reasons To Be Cheerful (Nov. 28, 2025), originally published by Next City, https://reasonstobecheerful.world/los-angeles-guerilla-urbanism-crosswalks-safer-streets/.

[3] Univ. of Cal., Berkeley, Inst. of Transp. Stud., Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), Pedestrian Injury Collisions, Los Angeles, https://tims.berkeley.edu

[4] Joe Linton, “LADOT Hosts Traffic Safety Pop-Up Installations,” Streetsblog L.A. (May 16, 2019), https://la.streetsblog.org/2019/05/16/ladot-hosts-traffic-safety-pop-up-installations.

[5] Id.

[6] Maya Sugarman, “As Community Mourns 9-Year-Old Nadir Gavarrete, Crosswalk Collective Improves Deadly Koreatown Intersection,” Streetsblog L.A. (Aug. 4, 2025), https://la.streetsblog.org/2025/08/04/as-community-mourns-9-year-old-nadir-gavarrete-crosswalk-collective-improves-deadly-koreatown-intersection.

[7] Los Angeles Dep’t of Transp., Vision Zero, https://ladotlivablestreets.org/programs/vision-zero (last visited Dec. 14, 2025).

[8] Jon Regardie, “Traffic Deaths in Los Angeles Exceed Murder Total for Second Consecutive Year,” Crosstown LA (Jan. 27, 2025), https://xtown.la/2025/01/27/traffic-deaths-in-los-angeles-exceed-murder-total-for-second-consecutive-year/.

[9] Kavish Harjai, “Lack of Political Will and Poor Coordination Hamper LA Goal to Eliminate Traffic Deaths, Audit Finds,” LAist (Dec. 9, 2025), https://laist.com/brief/news/transportation/lack-of-political-will-and-poor-coordination-hamper-la-goal-to-eliminate-traffic-deaths-audit-finds.

[10] Regardie, Traffic Deaths in Los Angeles, Crosstown LA (2025).

[11] City of Los Angeles, Office of the City Administrative Officer & Los Angeles Department of Transportation, City Administrative Officer Vision Zero Program Independent Evaluation and Los Angeles Department of Transportation Vision Zero Evaluation and Safety Plan – Revised 106–107 (Apr. 11, 2025) (Council File No. 23-0600-S121).

[12] Id. at 99.

[13] Emily Holshouser, “When LA City Ignores Your Pleas for Pedestrian Safety, Talk to the Crosswalk Collective”, KNOCK LA, https://knock-la.com/crosswalk-collective-pedestrian-safety-la/.

[14] TIMS, Transportation Injury Mapping System (UC Berkeley SafeTREC), https://tims.berkeley.edu.

[15] Rachel Gaudosi, “Fed Up With City Delays, Westside Residents Add DIY Crosswalks,” Westside Current,

https://www.westsidecurrent.com/news/fed-up-with-city-delays-westside-residents-add-diy-crosswalks/article_54b07d76-eac6-443b-be25-8c984de84295.html.

[16] Dañiel Andres Martinez, Kavish Harjai & Fiona Ng, “City repaints DIY crosswalks around West L.A. park, one week after outcry from residents,” LAist (Aug. 1, 2025), https://laist.com/news/transportation/la-repaints-diy-crosswalks-around-west-la-park.

[17] NBC Universal, Inc., “LA crews install crosswalks near West LA park,” NBC Los Angeles video (Aug. 1, 2025), https://www.nbclosangeles.com/video/on-air/la-crews-paint-over-diy-crosswalks-in-sawtelle/3758623/.

[18] Martinez et al., “City repaints DIY crosswalks around West L.A. park”.

[19] Colleen Shalby, “Tired of waiting for the city, some Angelenos paint their own crosswalks; some become permanent,” Los Angeles Times (Aug. 6, 2025), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-06/tired-of-waiting-for-the-city-some-angelenos-paint-their-own-crosswalks-some-become-permanent.

[20] Cal. Veh. Code § 275(a) (West 2025).

[21] Cal. Veh. Code § 21950(a) (West 2025).

[22] Cal. Veh. Code § 21400

[23] Cal. Veh. Code § 21401

[24] Cal. Veh. Code

[25] Cal. Dep’t of Transp., California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices § 3B.18, at 695 (2023 ed.).

[26] Id. at 1303.

[27] Id. at 696.

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] CA MUTCD § 3A.03 ¶ 5, at 659.

[31] Los Angeles Dep’t of Transp., LADOT Traffic Counts Summary (dataset), City of Los Angeles Open Data,

https://data.lacity.org/Transportation/LADOT-Traffic-Counts-Summary/94wu-3ps3 (last accessed Dec. 13, 2025).

[32] Helen Jeong, Dennis Broad and Yvonne Guevara, “Hit-and-run driver injures LA Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky’s staffer, kills her dog,” NBC Los Angeles (Oct. 7, 2025), https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/hit-and-run-miracle-mile-yaroslavsky-field-deputy/3788105/.

[33] LADOT Traffic Counts Summary.

[34] Id.

[35] CA MUTCD § 3A.03 ¶ 6, at 659.

[36] CA MUTCD § 3A.04 ¶ 1, at 660.

[37] Los Angeles Dep’t of Transp., Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) 9 (2023).

[38] Id. at 17.

[39] Id.

[40] MPP std. plan S-481.1.

[41] Id.

[42] Los Angeles Dep’t of Transp., Transportation Assessment Guidelines (TAG) § A-27-33 (2020).

[43] Id. § A(b)(1).

[44] Id. § A(b)(2).

[45] Id. § A(e).

[46] Id. § A.

[47] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title II, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12165 (2022).

[48] Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) § R205.2.1 (Curb Ramps), 36 C.F.R. pt. 1191, app. D (2024).

[49] Joe Linton, “No, L.A. City Does Not Always Add Required ADA Ramps During Resurfacing, But They Should”, Streetsblog L.A. (May 3, 2024), https://la.streetsblog.org/2024/05/03/no-l-a-city-does-not-always-add-required-ada-ramps-during-resurfacing-but-they-should.

[50] See L.A. Off. of the City Admin. Officer, Measure Healthy Streets LA (HLA) and Mobility Plan 2035, Council File No. 23-0600-S54, CAO File No. 0220-00210-0285, at 2–6 (Feb. 15, 2024).

[51] See Cal. Dep’t of Transp., Traffic Safety Bulletin 21-01: Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Implementation Guidelines 4 (Sept. 2, 2021).

[52] Damien Newton, “New Legal Details Emerge on City Sidewalk Repair Settlement,” Streetsblog L.A. (Jan. 12, 2016), https://la.streetsblog.org/2016/01/12/new-legal-details-emerge-on-city-sidewalk-repair-settlement.

[53] See Willits v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 10-05782 GAF (RZx), Exhibit A: Settlement Agreement §§ 12.7, 12.9 (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 1, 2015)

[54] Willits v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 10-05782 GAF (RZx), 2011 WL 6025596 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011).

[55] Joe Linton, “No, L.A. City Does Not Always Add Required ADA Ramps During Resurfacing — But They Should,” Streetsblog L.A. (May 3, 2024), https://la.streetsblog.org/2024/05/03/no-l-a-city-does-not-always-add-required-ada-ramps-during-resurfacing-but-they-should.

[56] Oren Hadar, “L.A. Has Stopped Repaving Our Streets,” Future is L.A., https://futureis.la/p/la-has-stopped-repaving-our-streets.

[57] TIMS, Pedestrian Injury Collisions, Los Angeles.

[58] See L.A., Cal., Mun. Code § 41.20.1 (establishing the application process and permitting requirements for special events, including temporary street closures and use of the public right-of-way).

Note: the respondents I talk about in this story are real people who suffered indescribable hardship to come to the United States. However, to protect their identities, some personally identifying information and details have been altered.

For my first summer of law school, I worked with Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project, a nonprofit that provides legal services to immigrants in deportation proceedings. My job often involved helping immigrants who couldn’t afford legal representation navigate the labyrinthine immigration process.

Over the course of the summer I worked closely with a tightly-knit Guatemalan family and grew invested in their case. The father, Hector, works in construction; his partner Iracena is a housekeeper. Together they have two children: Juan, age 15, and Diana, age 9. They are sturdy, hardworking people, with calloused hands and brown skin the color of healthy soil. They live together in a small apartment in South LA.

Some time ago they came into our office in Westlake and I’d asked them about their reasons for immigrating to the United States.

Hector was a shopkeeper in Guatemala when his shop was robbed by members of a local gang. He was slashed and stabbed multiple times by machete-wielding gangsters and left to bleed to death. But he miraculously survived after several intensive surgeries and a months-long recovery process. The machete wounds left a thick lump of scar tissue on Hector’s face where he’d nearly lost his eye. He also sported scars on his arm, leg, and stomach, where the machete’s blade had come millimeters from slicing open his internal organs, according to the doctors.

Hector’s co-worker who hadn’t been scheduled to work that day reported the incident to the police and was murdered shortly thereafter, his body left on public display. Although Hector moved his family to a new town as soon as he was out of the hospital, word eventually got out that he’d survived the attack. Gang members accosted his family, threatening that he’d end up just like his co-worker if he didn’t leave the country immediately.

So Hector, Iracena, Juan, and Diana packed up their belongings and fled the country they’d known their whole lives, the country which had comprised the scope of their existence, and undertook the arduous journey to the United States. Like the millions that came before them, they chose Los Angeles as the fertile ground upon which to plant the seeds of their new life.

As they tearfully recounted their experiences, I helped them fill out an asylum application, often the only legal path to entry to the United States for “low-skilled” workers. (I hate that term.) I felt that they had a strong claim. They had a visceral, emotional, story and the evidence to back it up.

The family was understandably nervous about going to court. They’d only been in the United States for a year and a half, and the Trump administration was targeting people who’d been in the country for less than two years for expedited removal. That means no judge, no due process, just a couple days in detention and a plane ride back to hell.

Hector, Iracena, and their children are the sort of people who are constantly demonized by the president and his cadre of right-wing media talking heads as “criminal illegal aliens,” another dehumanizing turn of phrase. They’re the people who are being snatched up by masked government agents and loaded into vans to be shipped off to an unknown future. They knew this, as did I, so in addition to their asylum claim I helped them file a motion to change their hearing format from in-person to video.

Time was of the essence — the court needed to receive the motion to change format at least 15 days before the hearing, and the clock was ticking. It was also good to get the asylum app submitted early, so the judge would see that everything was done correctly, promptly, and according to process. Hector was the chief respondent and the family’s cases were consolidated, meaning we only needed to write one asylum app and one motion to change format for the four of them. Still, it was a mountain of paperwork.

I printed three copies of the family’s asylum app and motion to change format, one for the court, one for opposing counsel (the Department of Homeland Security attorney), and one for the family to keep. It came out to at least 50 pages.

We arranged to meet at the family’s apartment to review and sign everything. Since they didn’t live too far from me I decided to ride my bike. But I had to hustle since I was running late and by the time I arrived I was sweaty and out of breath.

It was a classic mid-century LA apartment building with a cracked, sunbleached, pastel-painted stucco exterior and metal bars over the windows. Hector and Iracena welcomed me in. Several bikes leaned against the wall. Instantly, my anxiety about tardiness and perspiration melted away. These people biked and took public tranist everywhere, too. Neither Hector nor Iracena had a drivers’ licence, let alone a car. They got it. I reflected on the thought that people who cannot afford cars are the most likely to be harmed by a society built around the automobile, and receive the most benefit from better pedestrian infrastructure and public transit.

Hector turned the fan on and offered me some water. Inside, the apartment was small but cozy and inviting. The floor was swept and mopped. Childrens’ toys were pushed to the sides of the living room; the kids were at summer camp. We sat down at a linoleum-covered dinner table and I explained of the documents and confirmed the details. Once they understood and had signed their asylum application and motion to change their hearing format, I collected the documents and headed over to the post office to mail everything where it needed to go.

The vast amount of paperwork that immigrants are required to print and mail creates yet another barrier to legal immigration. What’s more, there’s no right to an attorney in immigration proceeding, so many immigrants who can’t afford an lawyer have to represent themselves in court. These hurdles make taking the legal route to enter this country exceedingly difficult and costly. Another obstacle is the needless complexity of the immigration system.

Working in the law is a lot like being a mechanic. Back in the day, cars were simpler, with fewer buttons and gadgets and touch screen menus. They were easier for the average person to understand. If you had a problem, you could probably repair things yourself with basic tools and minimal experience. Nowadays you might have to take your car to a specialized mechanic to get it fixed. As cars have gotten more complicated, people have become more removed from a basic understanding of the underlying processes that make cars function. The same goes with the law, and our understanding of justice in society more generally.

The point is, if you’re an immigrant and you can’t afford an attorney, you’re like somebody on the side of the road with a broken-down ride and no tools. The car was designed to break down, engineered to be impossible to repair without going to the dealership. But it was the only ride that you thought could take you where you needed to to go and all you could afford.

The stakes are high. You know that you need to fix your car fast to get to your destination, otherwise you’ll get deported. You can’t afford a tow, let alone a mechanic, and there’s no such thing as AAA. You feel frustrated, confused, and isolated. But there’s no turning back now. So you roll up your sleeves, pop the hood, and get to work.

Court

The basis of the motion to change hearing format I’d helped Hector and Iracena put together had been the hardship and expense of getting to and from court, as well as the lost wages from having to take the day off. That wasn’t enough, apparently; the court mandated they appear in person or be ordered deported.

So Hector, Iracena, and Diana (Juan was old enough to stay home alone) woke up at 5 AM the morning of their hearing. They left their apartment at 6 AM to catch a bus to the E line train, which they took to the K line transfer station at Expo / Crenshaw, before transferring again to the C line and trekking through the concrete jungle from the station to the West LA immigration courthouse, a nondescript building by the airport.

I met the family in the lobby. We shuffled into the courtroom, a sterile, rectangular box washed in harsh fluorescent lighting. The judge and his assistant sat at the bench in the front of the room next to an American flag. There was a TV screen on one side of the room displaying the names of parties who were in attendance virtually, mostly the attorneys of the people who could afford them plus the Department of Homeland Security attorney and an interpreter. The gallery consisted of three rows of flat-backed wooden pews, where we took a seat near a couple and a young man.

Proceedings began around 8:15 AM, starting with the cases where the respondents had paid attorneys. The judge turned to the TV screen on the wall, addressing each attorney in turn as their client’s case was called. None of the represented clients were themselves present; only the people who couldn’t afford attorneys were required to appear at the courthouse in person.

The judge spoke with the urgency of cold molasses on a Monday morning.

At around 8:35 AM, the judge announced that he needed a break and retreated into his chambers. We waited, shifting uncomfortably on the hard wooden benches. Picture the most boring church service you’ve ever been to, in a language you don’t understand, with no promise of eternal salvation, only the threat of deportation if you don’t go.

At around 9:00, there was still no sign of the judge. I’d naively left a book in my car, thinking that proceedings would be over quickly. I wondered if I had time to run outside and grab it. Fortunately, I’d remembered my pen and journal, where I recounted this experience.

The judge returned to the bench at 9:11 AM, after we’d been waiting in awkward, nervous silence on the hard pews for more than a half hour.

One of the lawyers appearing virtually had forgotten to include a FBI background check in her client’s asylum application. Her client was a middle-aged Russian lady with a previous felony conviction. Forgetting the background check was a big mistake. The judge chastised the lawyer for her oversight and ordered a deportation and that was that.

After what seemed like forever, all the attorneys and their paying clients were done. Now it was just the pro se respondents, the people without representation who’d been required to show up in person. The judge took a roll call and it became apparent that there were several no-shows.

The clean-cut Honduran man from the couple seated in front of us was first on the docket. He stepped forward and took a seat at counsel’s table, donning a set of headphones to hear the interpreter. The judge reviewed his asylum application, taking off his glasses and rubbing his eyes. The clerk yawned. The DHS attorney moved not to pursue the case based on prosecutorial discretion and the judge ordered the case dismissed.

When the man tried to appeal, the judge grilled him on the legal basis for doing so. Of course the guy didn’t know what to do or say. The clerk printed a packet of legal paperwork containing instructions on how to appeal and plopped it unceremoniously on the table. The man’s case — and his future in the United States — was relegated to legal limbo.

Each case was a vignette of somebody’s life and their story and all their problems that led to this time and place, reduced to a folder in a file under that sterile fluorescent courtroom light. Then it was our turn. Hector and Iracena walked to the counsel table and put the headphones on. Diana remained seated next to me, swinging her legs and anxiously watching her parents. The judge confirmed the Hector and Iracena’s personal information then reiterated the government’s charges against them.

“The government charges you with being removable,” he said.

I could see Hector’s leg shaking violently.

Next, the judge asked if they’d like to designate a country of removal apart from Guatemala, the country from which Hector and Iracena had fled. The question felt like a trap. It seemed like by suggesting a country, they’d be consenting to be deported there. Besides, Guatemala was the only country they’d ever lived, aside from the United States, and Hector expressed that he was afraid to return to Guatemala because he’d been almost killed by gang members there. The judge seemed annoyed and restated the question. The DHS attorney suggested the family be deported to Guatemala, if it came down to that. Hector and Iracena hesitantly agreed.

The judge somberly read the standard legal jargon about the consequences of making a frivolous asylum claim and reiterated that they would be ordered deported if they failed to appear in court. Then the judge set the next court date for several months in the future and told them to consider adding more evidence to their asylum application in the meantime.

And that was it. No discussion of the facts, no consideration of their asylum application, just a court date to decide on a time for another court date. Hector and Iracena’s time in front of the judge lasted maybe ten minutes, at most. We left the court room at 10:45 AM.

This story is only unusual insofar as I was present. The vast majority of immigrants navigate deportation proceedings entirely unrepresented. Our Kafkaesque immigration system is a slaughterhouse for the American Dream. Yet somehow, people manage and life goes on.

Let’s talk about the crosswalks at Stoner Park.

My name’s Jonathan Hale and I live in Sawtelle. I love to walk my dog to Stoner Park, but I hate the number of times we’ve almost been hit by drivers. I really worry about my dog getting hurt by somebody rolling through a stop sign.

This park is also a place where a lot of children hang out. It’s a place for summer camps, picnics, and water fights by the pool. People come here with their families. You’ll see moms pushing strollers, groups of kids getting out of tennis practice, teenagers kicking it after school.

Stop and watch the flow of traffic and people at the corners around the park and you won’t have to wait long before witnessing a close call. Getting hit by a car is the leading cause of death for children between the ages of 5 and 14 in Los Angeles. That’s why I decided to organize a group of neighbors and community members to paint two crosswalks leading to the park at each of the park’s four corners. I didn’t want to wait for a child to die before we took action to make our streets safer.

There was a group called the Crosswalk Collective already painting unsanctioned crosswalks in other parts of the city, so I reached out to them to learn how to do it. They invited me out to Hollywood, where we painted two brand-new crosswalks at the corner of Sycamore and De Longpre. As we painted, I learned that it can take years to get basic road safety improvements done, if they happen at all. The Crosswalk Collective’s website contains a form where residents can submit local intersections. They have received requests to install crosswalks at intersections officially approved by the city and budgeted after a years-long process only to be rescinded due to budget constraints.

When LADOT heard what the Crosswalk Collective was up to, they called the cops. LAPD fined the crosswalk painters $250 each and cited them for “injury to public property”. The police threatened fines of $1,000 if they were caught painting crosswalks again. LADOT also took steps to remove the crosswalks, sending teams out with heavy equipment to pressure wash the paint away. Although there were risks, I’d seen enough close calls by the park and had enough myself. It was worth it to make the streets safer for kids.

Beyond the Crosswalk Collective, I’ve always been inspired by the works of artists and activists who have taken the initiative to make a change in their communities: Richard Ankrom, who covertly installed a freeway sign to help direct drivers to the 5; Ron Finley, the gangsta gardner; the undercover carpenters at the San Francisco Bay Area Bench Collective (SFBABC) and Chris Duderstadt; and so many others. It was in the spirit of these groups and individuals that I decided to paint crosswalks at Stoner Park.

We started painting on Saturday, May 24, and painted two crosswalks every Saturday until we’d hit every corner, finishing on June 14. Our goal was to have crosswalks at every corner before summer camp got started because there’d be a surge in the number of kids crossing the streets.

The painting parties took two hours, from 8-10 AM, and a half hour of that was waiting for the paint to dry. It was fun: we listened to music, chatted with our neighbors, and made new friends in the area. Community members chipped in to cover the cost of paint and supplies, which wasn’t really all that much. It costs about $50 for everything you need to lay down two crosswalks.

Yellow paint is standard within 600 feet of a school, which means that the crosswalk at the corner of S Westgate Ave and Missouri should be yellow because of its proximity to New West Charter School. There are also already yellow crosswalks on the adjacent blocks at the corners of Missouri Ave and Armacost Ave, La Grange Ave and Stoner Ave, and La Grange and Barrington.

California Vehicle Code § 21368 states that yellow is appropriate whenever “it appears that the facts and circumstances require special painting or marking of the crosswalks for the protection and safety of persons attending [a] school”. Given the number of children’s programs and recreational activities at the park, the amount of schools in the area, and the existing yellow crosswalks nearby, I decided we’d paint all the crosswalks at Stoner Park yellow.

We considered the possibility of presenting a liability risk to the city. From a legal standpoint, crosswalks exist at every intersection, regardless of whether they are marked. Cars must yield to pedestrians when they approach a stop. So marking the crosswalks alerts drivers to the presence of pedestrians, especially at a place like Stoner Park where there are frequently children crossing. We often place the blame for traffic violence on bad drivers, but oftentimes collisions happen when drivers are operating normally on streets designed without consideration for the safety of anybody not in a car.

When we started painting, I let a reporter at the Westside Current know what we were up to. I thought the paper’s readers might have kids themselves and be sympathetic to our effort to make the streets safer. But I requested that the reporter hold off on publishing the story for some time so that we’d be able to enjoy the crosswalks as a community for a bit before they got removed. The Westside Current finally broke the news on Tuesday, July 22, almost two months after our first crosswalk painting party. Fox 11, NBC, KTLA, and other media outlets soon followed.

The attention the story was getting got somewhat overwhelming as news vans arrived at Stoner Park to interview me and my neighbors. But the positive reception was incredibly encouraging. People from all over town reached out to ask how they could help or do something similar in their neighborhoods. The stories also received no small amount of negative pushback, because I admittedly hadn’t asked the city for permission before I painted.

On Friday, July 25, I got a text from a neighbor alerting me that the city was removing the crosswalks. I hurried over to the park and was disheartened to find a team of workers blocking off the road and using skid steers and a street sweeper to scour the traffic paint from the asphalt.

The timing was frustrating: this was less than 72 hours after the first news story came out. This meant that the city was entirely capable of quickly mobilizing resources, but only to remove crosswalks instead of proactively installing them.

I tried to talk ask the workers if the city had an official statement or reason for removing the crosswalks, but they were contractors and not authorized to speak about it. With all the heavy equipment, I wondered how much it cost to remove the crosswalk we’d painted compared to how much it would cost to install an official one, or just let ours be – which would cost nothing.

The city had made no effort to reach out to me or my neighbors. Even though I knew I should have filed a 311 request before taking things into the community’s hands, I’d imagined a different response from the city: Hey, we see what you’re trying to do but we’d appreciate it if you went about things the official way. We both want safer streets for kids, let’s work together to quickly achieve this goal. But I realize that was wishful thinking.

This isn’t the end of the story. If the city can move that quickly to remove crosswalks, they can move equally quickly to install them. Crosswalks hurt nobody and they benefit us by making our streets safer for children. Additionally, the city leadership should legalize, normalize, or otherwise affirm acts of civil society to make up for the city’s shortfalls.

I’m counting on our city councilwoman Traci Park, a staunch advocate of local control, to make a public statement unequivocally supporting our neighborhood effort to make the streets safer for children. Park’s field deputy, Michael Amster, has publicly expressed support for guerrilla crosswalk painting: “At Stoner Park, at the intersection of Stoner and Nebraska, one guy went out there and painted yellow blocks to assist people in crossing, and it looks beautiful,” said Amster in a public West LA Sawtelle Neighborhood Council meeting on June 25.

Crosswalks are clear common ground, and we’ll need Traci Park’s support if we want to take action to make our streets less dangerous for kids. I welcome the opportunity to work together on addressing this issue.

It’s clear from the timeline of the crosswalk removal that the city is capable of acting quickly. So we are giving the city until Saturday, August 2nd to either replace all four crosswalks around Stoner Park with official markings or publish clear guidelines for how neighborhoods can organize, fund, and complete infrastructure projects when the city cannot or will not make necessary safety improvements.

I am also requesting an official answer to the questions that I tried to ask city workers as they were removing the crosswalks we painted:

• How much does it cost to install a single crosswalk in LA?

• How many crosswalk requests has the city gotten, and how many have they fulfilled? How long does it take to handle them?

• How much did it cost to remove the crosswalks at Stoner Park, and how long did the process take?

• How long is the backlog of road repair work, and why did the city prioritize removing the crosswalks at Stoner Park over other projects?

Our common goal is to make our streets safe for children. If the city cannot install crosswalks at Stoner Park due to budget constraints, we’ll gladly do it ourselves and foot the bill. And I acknowledge that there’s a limit to what can and should be accomplished by cutting red tape – bureaucratic processes serve an important purpose. But we should also acknowledge the failure of a civic culture that prioritizes spending time and money to remove crosswalks near a park where children play just because they’re unpermitted.

I’m looking forward to the city’s response, and I’m excited to have our crosswalks back at Stoner Park.

According to the Los Angeles Municipal Code Sec. 68, it is generally illegal to install a public bench in Los Angeles in most instances, including “any location distant more than 50 feet from the nearest intersecting street”. Where benches are allowed, there is a four-step permitting and approval process, requiring a project estimate, a plan check, plan approval and response to comments, then the actual permit issuance. Then the bench must be officially assessed before it is finally fit for human asses. Each bench permit requires an annual fee, and the process must be repeated separately for each individual bench.

But I didn’t really care, I just wanted a place to sit. This post will provide an exact blow-by-blow narrative of my experience with this project, as well as the hiccups and obstacles I experienced along the way.

Background and inspiration

I worked off a design by Chris Duderstadt, who’s been building and installing public benches around the city of San Francisco for years. He’s single-handedly installed more than 200 benches, some of which feature intricate painted artwork. There’s a PDF of his original design out there somewhere; if you’re interested in doing this yourself I’m happy to send it to you. The SFBA Bench Collective also provides a comprehensive and thorough guide on how to build and install a bench start to finish and I owe a lot to them for their help getting the ball rolling.

The Bench Collective’s design is more or less identical to the Duderstadt benches except the Bench Collective’s benches have an extra leg in the middle for more support. Each bench is six feet wide (or wider, depending on how long you choose to make the slats). I decided to stick with the original Duderstadt design of two legs with braces.

My plan was to install two benches at Stoner Park and two at the West LA Civic Center. These benches are a response to the lack of community third spaces and the government’s opposition to community-building efforts through weaponized bureaucracy.

I chose Stoner Park because neighbors I’ve talked to there had told me they’d tried to get more benches but the city put them through a rigamarole of red tape that made it impossible. I’d also previously painted crosswalks around the corners of the park and wanted to continue working to make the park a more accessible and enjoyable place to hang out.

I chose the West LA Civic Center because it’s a neglected public space that could be really awesome if our local elected officials cared. It’s a DIY skate spot that also contains the mayor’s field office, a small amphitheater, the abandoned West LA courthouse, and a huge parking lot that is sometimes used as a staging area by certain government agencies. Frankly, I thought this would be a cheeky stunt to pull off directly outside the field office and across the street from a police station. What were they gonna do, arrest me?

By the way, there was a plan to develop West LA Civic Center into 926 units of housing, including 431 affordable units, while maintaining a green space, a plaza, and area for the public to congregate. The residents of Sawtelle showed up in masse to protest the greedy developers from destroying their cherished historic plaza, abandoned courthouse, and parking lots. I wish I could say I’m joking but that’s pretty much what actually happened.

The project has more or less been indefinitely delayed due to rising interest rates and changing financial priorities. But reading between the lines, the reason this project fell through is because it’s insanely pricey to build underground parking, conduct environmental reports mandated by CEQA, and show up for years of community input before you can build any kind of housing in LA. Anyway, the development was supposed to break ground in 2023 and be completed by 2028 but as of today, 2025, nothing has changed.

But I digress. To be completely honest, I chose these locations because I enjoy loafing around outside and there’s nothing like a good bench to sit on for a while and watch the world go by. That’s what this has always been about at the end of the day anyway, doing what benefits me. If it benefits anybody else, it’s an unintended consequence of something I did out of pure self-interest. Think of it as trickle-down economics at an individual level.

July 2-3: Preparation and acquiring tools

First, I needed to get the lumber. Each bench requires eight eight-foot two-by-fours, six for the slats and two for the legs and braces. So on Wednesday, July 2nd, I went to Lowe’s and picked up 32 two-by-fours, as well as the carriage bolts, nuts, washers, wood screws, sandpaper, and sealant I needed. I loaded everything into my Prius and headed home on surface streets with my hazards on, the two-by-fours sticking partially out the window. This was the first of many trips to the hardware store.

The first task was to saw the eight foot boards down to six feet to make the slats the width of the benches I wanted to build. Since I was building four benches, I needed 24 six-foot slats, six for each bench. I started by sawing off a few two-foot pieces, then I screwed these two foot boards together make a janky sawhorse. I put on some music and an audiobook (Random Family by Adrian Nicole LeBlanc) and spent the night sawing the rest.

I was able to borrow a sturdy DeWalt drill from my awesome property manager Patrick, and a backup drill and bits from a friend. But I figured I’d need a power saw because the seat of the bench had a slight curve that would be hard to do by hand. I’d invited some friends over to build benches on the Fourth of July and I was kind of freaking out because I didn’t have a power saw yet. I found a deal on a circular saw on Facebook Marketplace so I went to buy it on Thursday night, July 3rd.

When I drove over to pick it up I realized that it was on old DeWalt model that required a battery adapter to use the battery I had. So I headed to the hardware store to see if they had an adapter. They didn’t. Thinking on my feet, I found a deal on a Ryobi reciprocating saw on Facebook Marketplace and arranged to pick it up the next morning, Friday the Fourth of July at 7:30 am, before my friends came over. I could flip the DeWalt later, I just wanted to be prepared to host people for a bench-building party.

July 4-5: Assembly

The night of the 3rd and early the morning of the 4th, I pre-drilled the pilot holes in the slats for the wood screws that would connect the slats to the legs and back, and started on the leg, back, and brace pieces. Duderstadt’s design uses clever measurements to minimize the amount of cutting you have to do. All four leg pieces can be cut cleanly from a single eight-foot two-by-four. The back and seat pieces can be cut from another, and the braces and spacers are easy to make from the scrap two-foot segments left over after cutting the slats.

My friends trickled over to my apartment over the course of the day on the 4th. We hung out and drank some beers while we sawed the remaining pieces and started to assemble the benches. The reciprocating saw didn’t help as much as I thought it would so I ended up sawing most of the pieces by hand. My buddy Jeremy made a much sturdier sawhorse from the scrap wood, which helped a lot. Once all the pieces were cut and drilled, putting everything together was like building Ikea furniture. By the end of the day, we had two unfinished but assembled benches. It was a blast.

July 6: Sanding and sealing

After assembly, the next step was sanding and sealing. I considered borrowing a power sander from the LA County Library, but it was a 45 minute drive to the Malibu location, the closest location that had an orbital sander available. So I decided to rent one from Home Depot because I needed to go there anyway to rent a rotary hammer and get a couple more two-by-fours to replace the busted slat. A rotary hammer is a badass tool that lets you drill holes into thick materials like concrete, asphalt, and ceramics. I needed one to make holes for bolts that I’d use to secure the benches to the ground at the West LA Civic Center.

I got a 4 hour rental for both tools, which was ambitious. I was going to try to sand and seal the two benches that I’d put at the West LA Civic Center, then carry them over and install them into the concrete using the rotary hammer. I sanded two benches and sealed one then checked the time, saw I was cutting it close, and decided to head over.

One by one I hoisted the benches over my head and walked the couple blocks to the spot. I felt like the shit, pulling up covered in sawdust to drop off the benches I’d built. The skaters that frequent the plaza were curious and then stoked when I explained what I was doing. But when I got there that there was no outlet I could plug in the corded rental rotary hammer. Oops.

July 7: Installation

After returning the tools, I decided to suck it up and drive out to Malibu to borrow a power sander. Then I managed to crowdsource a rotary hammer and went down to Culver to borrow it.

I assembled the last bench and sanded and sealed the remaining two benches, which would go at Stoner Park. Then I loaded them into my trunk one by one and drove over. I put one bench at the dog park area and one by the outdoor calisthenics gym.

Then I grabbed the rotary hammer, some sandpaper, and my wood sealant, as well as a few L-brackets and screws. I walked over to the civic center. There were some people sitting on my benches and I explained what I was doing and asked if they could please sit somewhere else for a little bit.

First, I gave both benches a light touch-up with the sandpaper. I applied sealant to the bench that I hadn’t sealed the other day. Next I drilled two holes in the concrete to secure two legs of one bench. I dropped in concrete wedge anchors, then the L-brackets, then I attached the L-brackets to each leg with wood screws. I moved on to the next bench because I could feel my rotary hammer starting to run out of juice. After drilling one hole in the concrete, it died. I ratcheted down the bolts and screws at the connection points for good measure.

The reaction

I was planning to secure the remaining bench legs another night after I’d recharged the rotary hammer. But just a couple days after I put the benches down at the West LA Civic Center, I came by to see that one had been removed. It was the bench that had been secured with two bolts. It was completely gone, and all that was left was a piece of wood that had been a part of one of the legs.

I could see that whoever had took the bench had ripped it from its footing in the concrete, breaking the wood where it was attached via the screws to the L-brackets. The other bench had been taken off the L-bracket and moved about six inches, but was otherwise unmolested. I asked around, but nobody knew what had happened.

Two days later, I was walking my dog early in the morning to check on the remaining bench and saw two workers in yellow city-branded vests inspecting it. They took photos of the bench, shook it, and talked to each other. I swore they were about to remove it. I watched them until I had to go to work and asked a some locals to keep an eye out.

When I came back after work, the bench was still there, and it had been moved back over to its original spot. Interestingly, somebody had made a crude attempt to reattach the concrete bolt to the L-bracket.

I have a hunch the city took the bench that was bolted down cause of the liability risk or whatever and left the other because people leave all kinds of weird knickknacks in that plaza anyway, so what’s the problem with a bench as long as it’s not bolted into the ground? Plus I’d installed the benches directly outside the neighborhood council office partly to mess with them, so I couldn’t really be mad about them getting taken.

I doubt it was a homeless person that took the bench because, well, if they wanted a place to sleep they could’ve done it right there without moving it. Plus the benches are heavy. It would’ve been hard to carry far, even with a shopping cart. But at the end of the day I have no proof the city took the bench and this is all just a hunch.

With a paint pen I wrote “PLEASE DON’T REMOVE EXCEPT FOR HOUSING :)” on the remaining bench at the civic center.

Stuff for next time

Here’s what worked and what didn’t, if I do this again:

• Having a sturdy sawhorse is essential. You can make a temporary one with the slats that you’ll use for your bench. Use the holes in your slats to screw them into the legs of the sawhorse, make all your cuts, then disassemble at the end.

• This is obvious, but DON’T STRIP YOUR SCREWS. If a screw even starts to strip, take it out and replace it.

• Applying sealant/stain/paint BEFORE assembly would have made things a lot easier and ensured an even coat across all surfaces. Potentially sanding each piece beforehand too.

• A spray bottle filled with sealant helped me cover the hard-to-access areas in a pinch.

• When installing on-site, make sure your rotary hammer is cordless or you have an extension cord is long enough to reach the nearest outlet.

• The rotary hammer is low-key an OP tool cause it lets you bolt stuff down permanently in concrete or asphalt, which opens up a realm of possibilities.

• The library tool checkout was clutch and the tools are high-quality.

• Sanding took way longer than I expected.

• Four benches was a lot of work for one weekend.

Final thoughts

Doing this reminded me how much I love building things. It feels good. But I’ve never worked in construction as a career, and I have immense respect for those who do. It is hard, labor-intensive work.

I love seeing the contractors show up at the crack of dawn with their beat-up pickups and hard hats covered in stickers to their job sites. Sometimes I feel like as a society we’ve forgotten the value and honor of this type of work. We certainly don’t acknowledge construction workers and day laborers as much as they deserve for what they do. If everybody did more DIY projects, this would change.

The benches I made are kind of mediocre. They’re not my best work. I could make a much benchier bench with better planning. But isn’t that the point? To not let the perfect be the downfall of the good? Besides, they do the job. I get excited whenever I walk by and see people sitting in my benches, enjoying their day, and I have to fight the urge to tell them “I built that!”

It was getting dark, and the fading purples and oranges of the evening were giving way to the glittering lights of downtown LA rising over the 110. The parking lot at the corner of 1st and Beaudry was buzzing in anticipation. Maybe a hundred people had gathered to watch ULOCK MOB’s first race of the summer.

A crit, short for criterium, is a bike race involving several laps around a short course. Another popular racing format is an alleycat, which is basically a scavenger hunt where racers are given a list of checkpoints around the city to find as fast as possible.

I’d shown up on a whim, wanting to dip my toes into the underground bicycle scene. I’d been in LA almost a year now and felt like I knew how to get around O.K. on a bike, plus the registration fee was only ten bucks and where else in town can ten bucks buy you that much of a thrill on a Friday night?

The crowd was racially diverse, mostly men in their mid-twenties to early thirties on fixies and track bikes. Looking around, I was one of only a few roadies. The riders’ track bikes were beautiful; sleek, aggressive geometry, massive chainrings, candy-painted frames.

There were a few OGs hanging around sipping Modelos who looked like they’d been around the block. I met this sinewy dude with a scruffy beard and grizzled, well-worn, features who told me he’d worked as a bike messenger in DTLA for 15 years in the early 2000s. Hell, ULOCK MOB was founded in 1999. Back then, the Metro comprised of the blue line from Long Beach to DTLA, the green line, and the red line; there were no protected bike paths; and I was just an idea in my parent’s heads.

In those days bike messengers cut up the streets and back alleys, delivering paperwork at the downtown legal offices and courthouses before the proliferation of electronic filing services. You’d get a document from a law office, sprint across town, then serve it to a clerk and get a stamped and certified copy to return to the lawyers.

These pioneers created a thriving renegade underground racing scene. They organized crits and alleycats to decide who was the fastest and boldest on two wheels and who knew the streets the best. Eventually computers made bike messengers mostly obsolete, but the culture lives on.

I thought about something I’d read recently, the idea that you need to do something for 10,000 hours to be an expert. I did the math just for the hell of it - 10,000 divided by an eight hour workday is 1,250 workdays. Divide that again by the 260 or so workdays in a calendar year, and it takes close to a half-decade of 9-to-5-ing to be an world-class expert at a given skill. This guy I’d been talking to was an expert in cycling, in navigating the streets of LA, three times over. I wondered if I was even close to being that good at anything, or if I would ever be.

I forked over ten bucks to a dude named Ash with a shaved head save for a grown out chunk of hair pulled back tight like a samurai. I was in.

The sixteen or so racers squeezed in to one traffic lane on Beaudry between 1st and 2nd, facing south. The course was a crit called the Bottleneck, a classic (I’d heard). It was a narrow mile-long loop roughly the shape of a bottle, hence the name. We’d go right on 2nd, head up the hill past the desolate rows of RVs and encampments, then make a hairpin right turn, bombing down 1st until we hit the final corner back to Beaudry.

A guy with a megaphone took a roll call of the racers and told us we had eight laps. After that we were supposed to check in at the finish line and get the instructions for the second part of the race, which was a surprise.

The crowd whooped and hollered as we started rolling, slowly at first, following a pace rider for the first lap. Then we were off.

Holy shit these guys are fast!

I didn’t stand a chance. I’d arrogantly thought that I’d have the edge on the uphill stretch of 2nd, given that I was the only racer with gears. But these fools were climbing like mountain goats!

Not even halfway through, I could feel my thighs burning. To be fair, earlier that day I’d ridden my bike over from the Westside to Western and Wilshire to link up with Critical Mass, which I’d followed to Wilshire and La Brea. By the time I made it over to the spot I’d ridden 15 miles or so. Then I’d stood around for just long enough to allow myself to grow cold before starting the race. But these are just excuses. I knew if I’d showed up fresh and warm having just chugged a Red Bull I still would’ve gotten smoked. Some guy lapped me on the uphill, laughing and challenging us to keep up. I couldn’t do shit but marvel at how this dude wasn’t slowed down by his massive cajones.

At the hairpin, a couple homeless dudes looked up to watch us pass. The scent of burning plastic wafted through the air. The downhill stretch of 1st street was a respite capped off by a fast turn back down the home stretch of Beaudry. A volunteer in a construction vest held a stop sign at the corner, blocking traffic so we had a clean turn. We flew past a rowdy crowd of spectators lining both sides of the road cheering us on. But I was too dialed in to really notice; any small slip-up would mean a certain wreck.

After I finished my laps — middle of the pack, but far from the lead — I got the instructions for the second part of the race, which was an alleycat. I received a laminated card with the race flyer on one side and a list of locations on the other. The flyer was a parody of a Mad magazine cover, with the heading: DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES UNDERGROUND CRITS CALCULATED TO DRIVE YOU… MAD.

The checkpoints were:

1. Bob’s Market

   1234 Bellevue Ave

2. Fort Moore

   416 N. Hill St

3. Jason’s Wine & Spirits

   828 Main St

4. Metro Station

   Grand Ave Arts/Bunker Hill

There was no map. Of course there wasn’t — you weren’t supposed to need a map. I pulled out my phone, which felt like cheating, but it didn’t matter anyways. I’d accumulated a film of sweat and grime that had managed to seep into my screen protector, making the touchscreen unusable. I set off blindly towards downtown holding my card in my mouth.

I thought about the OG messengers I’d talked to before the race, how they could probably run the course blindfolded with no problem. Then I reflected on my hubris, thinking I knew the streets like that after a year in LA. Not a chance! Unable to use my phone, I was functionally incapacitated. I didn’t like that feeling.

This was my first race and I didn’t know if you had to do the checkpoints in order and I didn’t know where Bob’s Market was anyway, so I headed towards Fort Moore because that was closest. I crossed north of the 101 and found myself on Cesar Chavez heading towards the intersection with N. Hill, where I knew I’d find Fort Moore somewhere.

When I got to the corner it dawned on me that Hill ran on a bridge over Chavez. Instead of going around the block I decided to climb the embankment, cyclocross style, to get up to the overpass.

“Hey! Where you going?” somebody shouted.

The man’s tone sounded concerned, not threatening. I tried to explain what I was doing at 10 pm on a Friday night in DTLA, and why it made sense that I wanted to run up this muddy hill wearing Lycra with my bike slung over my shoulder. I figured I’d looked goofy as hell with no context.

“There’s a coyote,” the stranger said, gesturing to a rustling in the shrubbery.

Sure enough, there was a coyote not ten feet away, staring directly at me looking equally befuddled by my presence. I turned back down the hill and rode around the block.

The volunteers at Fort Moore marked my card, which I figured meant we didn’t have to do the checkpoints in order. So I raced down Main to Jason’s, squinting to see the building addresses to see where I was at like we all used to have to do not even a couple decades ago. At Jason’s, the volunteers told me I had to start from the first checkpoint, Bob’s.

Shit! I didn’t even know where Bob’s was! Oh well. All I knew was that it was somewhere pretty close to the starting point, and I knew where that was. Plus I knew where the other spots were now.

As I was heading west on Temple, I felt a wobbling in my front wheel then BANG, my tube popped! I didn’t have a spare tube and I was about a mile out from the main spot. I hopped off my bike and started walking, and the street suddenly felt much darker and emptier than it had before.

Some guy in a beat-up blue Honda CR-V saw me and pulled over. He asked if I needed help or wanted a ride. I was suspicious, but this dude seemed genuinely friendly, so we chucked my beat-up bike into his trunk and I hopped in the front seat. I figured if he wanted to rob me he would’ve brought a friend — what was he going to do, stick me up and then expect me to stand there while he loaded my bike into his car? My gut check was right, this dude was a real one. His name was Monk, and he had just gotten off his shift as a server in downtown. Monk dropped me off across from the spot and we wished each other the best.

When I got back to the group I explained I’d gotten a flat and had to drop out, feeling somewhat embarrassed about the situation. Again, my preconceptions were wrong. Everybody was understanding and sympathetic and immediately jumped into action to help me get rolling again. A guy named Wali who I’d met before the race whipped a spare tube and a hand pump out of his bag. We looked around for some tire levers. Helping hands practically materialized out of the darkness.

A big, jovial dude named Junior had some tire levers. He grabbed my wheel and popped off the tire with ease, then removed the tube. We inflated it slightly and confirmed that there was a big puncture hole. Then Junior popped in the spare tube just as easily as he’d taken it out. While we struggled to inflate the new tube with the hand pump, somebody else showed up with a janky-looking gas-powered pump held together with duct tape. We needed a Presta adapter, and somebody had one. Within less than five minutes of me asking for help, my wheel was as good as new, with a fresh tube pumped to pressure.

Other racers were trickling in, equally confused by the instructions and unprepared for the alleycat. We laughed about it and roasted each other for being slow. Not everybody finished. But that didn’t matter so much as the fact that we started. I rode back to the Metro station at Grand, exhausted, and caught the last train back to the Westside.

When I think about the character of L.A., I think about my best friend Edwyn, the son of immigrants, born and raised in Compton. He overcame poverty and homelessness as a child, beating the odds at every turn to earn a full ride to UCLA Law School, where he’ll be my classmate this fall. If this city has a character, it’s Edwyn.

Edwyn is also legally blind. He doesn’t drive, and he never will. Is it right to tell Edwyn that his city isn’t built for him, that he needs a car to get around because that’s the way things always have been and always will be?

In 2025, Los Angeles is facing an existential question: what is our true character? Is it the blocks of bungalows bounded by white picket fences that attracted people from all over the country during the 20th century? Or is it the people themselves, driven by the undying promise of moving to Los Angeles for a better life? I think it’s the latter, and that’s why I’m supporting SB 79, which makes it easier to build housing around public transit.

SB 79 is a state bill that simultaneously addresses access to transit and the housing crisis. It allows 5- to 6-story buildings within a half mile of subway stops, 4-to 5story buildings around light rail, and 3- to 4-story buildings around rapid bus stations. Building homes within walking distance of public transit would immensely benefit a lot of people like Edwyn by increasing the stock of available housing and improving accessibility. In other words, SB 79 would protect the character of this city.

Part of the reason Los Angeles looks the way it does is due to our zoning laws. Broadly speaking, zoning laws are a patchwork of rules and regulations that affect the sort of housing that can be built. Among the most arbitrary of these rules is that over 70% of L.A.’s residential land is restricted to single-family homes. The net effect of these regulations is that in most of L.A., it’s against the law to build anything other than a single-family home on a large lot – the white picket fence style of American living.

Given the severity of L.A.’s housing drought, I was surprised to read a motion co-authored by L.A. city councilmembers Traci Park and John Lee opposing SB 79. Park and Lee are not opposing the bill for substantial reasons: after all, SB 79 will legalize housing that costs less than most of the single-family homes that exist around transit stops. Instead, they argue that the city should maintain local control over zoning “to best serve the needs of its residents, ensure community input, and protect the unique character of its neighborhoods while still complying with state housing needs”.

What they’re saying is that the character of the neighborhoods is the buildings, not the people. Park and Lee want to protect the single-family homes that dominate L.A.’s car-dependent sprawl and serve the people lucky enough to afford them. Everyone else will be priced out, like many of the nearly 200,000 people who have left L.A. County in the last five years alone. The city needs to build nearly a half million new homes by 2030 to meet existing demand, a goal that will remain out of reach without innovative policies like SB 79.

If L.A. gets its unique character from its people, there’s no way we’ll be able to preserve our character without policies like SB 79. It’s easy to get caught up in the weeds, so let’s imagine what Los Angeles might look like if this bill passes.

Fast forward to 2049: schoolkids step off the Metro at Expo/Bundy, returning from a museum trip. Some unlock bikes, others catch electric buses or walk home past shaded sidewalks, bustling cafes, and friendly neighbors. The streets are calmer, the air is cleaner, and LA has gone 14 years without a traffic death.

Families share cars, rely on transit, and live in mixed-income apartments legalized by forward-thinking housing reforms. The neighborhood is populated by a mix of people: welders, teachers, lawyers, and kids growing up unburdened by fear in a city reconnected by transit and community. None of this is guaranteed by SB 79. But without it, this vision stays illegal.

This is the future that I want. SB 79 signifies our openness to building our society centered around people, not cars. It moves us closer to achieving our housing goals and protects freedom and opportunity for all — especially people like Edwyn, people that give this city its character. The vision of Los Angeles I’ve laid out is my dream; better than that, it’s our plan. SB 79 isn’t the end of the track. But it’s a stop along the way.

“Everywhere I go, I tend to take my bike with me,” said Taisha. She was standing at the corner of Vermont Avenue and 8th Street in Koreatown, holding a blue mountain bike with tennis balls nestled into the spokes. A grocery bag hung on her right handlebar and she clutched a cigarette between her fingers.

It was rush hour and sunbeams cast an orange glow on the convoy of commuters crawling towards the intersection. Money transfer services, discount stores, and beauty salons bearing signs in Korean and Spanish lined sidewalks bustling with activity.

Taisha was riding on the sidewalk. There are no bike lanes along Vermont north of Gage Avenue. I asked her why she liked riding a bicycle around Los Angeles.

“You know, it’s quicker, it’s easy to get around,” she said. “It gives me peace of mind.”

“You ever been hit by a car?” I asked, keeping an eye on the evening mayhem in my periphery.

“Absolutely!” she exclaimed, laughing. “Yeah, everybody gets hit by cars. It’s always a victim of someone looking left and turning right. Always.”

I walked north on Vermont from 8th, trying to catch up to people I saw on bicycles. Most of them couldn’t stop to talk; they had places to be. But I managed to speak to a Central American man named Herman who requested not to be photographed.

He, too, was riding on the sidewalk carrying grocery bags on both handlebars. I asked him about how he got around in LA.

“Yo vivo aquí,” he said, “Y todos los días ando caminando, trabajando. Todos los días en la bici.”

I live here. And every day I’m walking around, working. Every day on my bike.

Herman explained that he was riding on the sidewalk because of the traffic and lack of bike lanes along this section of Vermont. He told me he enjoyed using the bike lanes where they existed because the cars respected him more. Here it was too dangerous to ride in the street, however, so Herman rode on the sidewalk, slowly weaving his way through pedestrian foot traffic.

“¿Quieres un carro?” I asked, curious. Do you want a car?

“Yo puedo comprar un carro,” he replied, “Pero mirando tantos choques, tantos accidentes, ya no me dan ganas. Es más, hay que pagar aseguranza, todo eso. Gasolina, todo.”

I could buy a car, but seeing so many collisions, so many accidents, it doesn’t make me want to. Besides, you need to pay insurance, all of that. Gas, everything.

As I walked, I couldn’t help but marvel at the dynamic, chaotic, urban ecosystem. The stretch of Vermont from Sunset Boulevard to 120th Street is one of the busiest transit corridors in LA, with tens of thousands of commuters flowing through it like blood cells through an artery.

A Metro proposal to implement a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line along Vermont Avenue would carry an estimated 70,000 riders every weekday. But Metro’s plan for Vermont Avenue does not include the bike lanes required to meet the needs of multimodal commuters like Taisha and Herman.

The city of Los Angeles, meanwhile, has looked the other way, refusing to collaborate with Metro to build a truly multimodal transit corridor – even though the city is legally required to fund the project under Measure HLA. That’s why local activist Joe Linton has sued the city, alleging that Los Angeles has shirked its legal responsibility to make roadway improvements in accordance with its Mobility Plan 2035.

It can be easy to lose sight of the actual effects this legal maneuvering has on people’s lives. If the city ignores its duty under Measure HLA and Metro builds the BRT line without a bike lane, thousands of bicycle commuters will be left stranded.

Many Angelenos believe that few people in their city ride bicycles. This perspective is all too common – especially, it seems, among the teams responsible for the future of the Vermont Ave project. Go to Vermont Ave any given day and you’ll find plenty of evidence to the contrary. As cars idle and inch forward, pedestrians and cyclists navigate the crowded sidewalks, always on the move.