Frequently Asked Questions
State-wide ballot initiatives, like Prop 13, override the authority of the state legislature. City-wide ballot initiatives override City Council authority. In this case, it provides PVE residents the ability to safeguard our land in case of a potential future pro-density Council.
This local initiative will prevent a potential future pro-density Council from approving density that violates our CC&Rs (deed restrictions). Further:
— it prevents SB9 lot splits that allow eight dwellings to replace one residence, because SB9 does not override CC&Rs (all property in PVE is deed restricted)
— it prevents a Council from approving an apartment building on a residential lot with just a simple majority
The CA State legislature has passed density laws that place PVE at risk.
Parkland is owned by the city (residents) and was sold by a prior Council. Our parkland is protected by CC&Rs (deed restricted) that made the sale illegal. The LA Superior Court ruled the sale illegal and negated the sale contract. This eliminated a dangerous precedent exposing $1.5 billion in parkland to unauthorized subsequent sales and commercial development without the required approval of the land owners (us).
This ballot measure prevents the development of open space, while the CC&Rs (deed restrictions) remain in place to protect against parkland sales.
Gratefully, our Council passed a policy which requires proposed new development projects on private property to comply with the CC&Rs (deed restrictions). However, this policy can be rescinded at any time by any subsequent Council.
This ballot initiative prevents this policy from being rescinded or modified, without voter approval.
Council members have spoken out against density and some have actively opposed.
PVE has $1.5 billion in parkland and open space at a time when millions are flowing to CA legislatures’ campaign chests from investers, developers and lobbyists. PVE needs to be protected from special interest flowing into PVE elections.
The state has been passing laws to permanently eliminate one home per lot. This benefits investment firms and developers. Here is how it works:
Here is the impact:
No See: https://www.communitiesforchoice.org/
Hear how a well-intended planner in Vancouver who sought to reduce housing costs only to see international investors turn Vancouver into a dense unaffordable rental market. Condon regrets what he has done to his city. It can never be undone. Now investors are the only ones who benefit from home appreciation with little investment into community parks and quality of life. **
Homes are monetized by international investors with little interest in safety, quality of life and community dynamics. Neighborhoods turn into transitory rental housing units. Homes become unaffordable as first-time home buyers must compete with large investment firms who can pay more for the homes for the long term gain of appreciation and controlling the rental market in the area.
Today 20% of homes are purchased by these large investment firms who then take control of the rental market and increase rental costs.
Examples: San Francisco, New York City, Vancouver
There is a bipartisan effort to place such a proposition on the state ballot by Nov 2024.
This would amend the CA Constitution. It is led by a solid legal team with the Mayor of Redondo. It has been paused until 2024. https://www.communitiesforchoice.org
90 more bills are in progress to force more density and reduce private home ownership. You can track bills in progress here: **
Here are a couple:
- AB916: Substantially reduces view protection.
- It allows developers to add bedrooms to ADUs and homes which are rubber stamped at the counter. This eliminates review/approval by the Planning Commission and Council to consider the impact on the neighbors and compatibility with the neighborhood.
- AB345: allows lot splits for ADUs, so a homeowner can sell part of their lot off to a developer as long as they build a separate mini house (ADU). Driveways are not required.
Ask Council members if they support this initiative:
- — To protect parkland and open space from development
- — To protect the plan of PVE, as defined by our CC&Rs 100 years ago, which is enforced by deed restrictions
- — To protect the design of PVE by the Olmsteds, who designed many national parks