
Two stories related to downtown development appeared in today’s L.A. Times, reiterating the continued intensification of downtown gentrification and the newspaper’s interest in mediating the conflicts arising from the transformation of the city core. The L.A. Times has, time and time again, proven to be a important ideological lubricator for this particular growth alliance, and such ‘top featured’ stories provide yet another window into how the paper tries to resolve the internal battles of downtown development by uncovering impasses while pointing toward a common ground of consensus.
In “Downtown property owners fight back MTA subway tunnel plans,” the MTA’s planned $1.4-billion regional rail line connector, which would carve open tunnel through Flower Street between 4th and 6th Street, has conflicted with key hotel-office-retail propertied interests who argue that construction will disrupt commerce and profitability. Thomas Properties’ City National Plaza, the largest office complex in the city (two 52-story skyscrapers with four underground levels of parking/shopping/restaurants facing Flower Street), is leading the opposition along with minor support from the Westin Bonaventure Hotel & Suits and others. A slew of lawsuits have been filed against the MTA through all sort of pretenses, citing damages ranging from safety risk, aesthetic despair, environmental degradation to seismic vulnerability (yes, if an earthquake hits, all the buildings would go down and kill the 12,000+ people that frequent this corridor each day.. that’s, like, OMG, way more than Sept. 11!).

While the ‘Flower Street rentier gang’ remains intransigent to the the gentrifying mayor’s assurance of smoothing out construction obstacles, cooler-heads at the L.A. Chamber of Commerce (or the bastard committee of the local bourgeoisie) have assured the public that long-term transit development in the busy commercial district is worth the temporary dip in profit margins. After all, as MTA executive officer Diego Cardoso so kindly reminded us at the very closing of the article, “We’re reinventing Los Angeles, basically.” Basically, basically. And why not? No cost is too high to reinvent an entire city in order to fundamentally renew the rent gap (the relation of potential rent to current rent) for landowners, line the pockets of developers with public subsidies, and expand the luxury service sector for yuppies, hipsters and other residents with readily disposable income to spend (all at the direct expense of the city’s working class of color bus riders, downtown immigrant shop-keepers and Skid Row residents’ access to public housing and social services, to name a few).
In related news, “Some chafe at downtown L.A.’s business improvement districts” uncovers the increased revulsion of downtown’s Business Improvement Districts, or BIDs, which provide designated areas with a private army of security guards and clean up crews in order to help market those areas for investors, businesses and residents. And the revulsion isn’t over their aggressive and often abusive police tactics against local “undesirables” (homeless, skateboarding kids, Occupy protestors, etc.), in fact, those tactics are lauded by local business owners and investors. No, this time it’s over a form of tax BIDs levy from landowners and businesses. According to the article, eight downtown BIDs collect roughly $15 billion in tax assessments every year, and the property owners are revolting. This is like a mini prop. 13 tax revolt, sort of. The major differences are that the BIDs are private/public entities, and the landowners’ withdrawal of revenue this time is not against the urban black and brown working classes (although, they do that too, in other ways), but against BIDs’ autonomous political-bureaucratic power and the services they say are no longer necessary. As a loft developer in the arts district who filed suit said, “This concept of BIDs, for me, is kind of something of the 80’s and 90’s. I think there are better ways to enhance the quality of life.” On the flip side, BID managers retorted by reminding the landowners how crucial they have been in helping gentrify their districts, with councilman Jose Huizar suggesting it would be “dangerous” to remove BIDs.

What’s striking about this piece is the uncritical and ahistorical approach it takes in framing the BID debate. On the one hand, the BIDs are said to have been very important in maintaining social order, cleanliness and institutional cohesion in business districts that, especially after the 1992 L.A. uprising (read: damn poor people, messing everything up!), have been transformed from shitholes to premier investment locations. On the other hand, BIDs are said to be parasitical, bureaucratic and wasteful entities whose functions have expired. Both of these arguments assume the hostile privatism of urban governance, an all too common situation today in which private interests (whether it be in the form of a BID or another more privatized governance structure that’s being called for by downtown landowners and businesses) trump public good, where ‘growth’ through rising rents, profits and entrepreneurialism eclipses democracy based on social responsibility, rights to housing, a living wage, etc.
Both stories here illustrate not only how the L.A. Times attempts to facilitate a “growth consensus” around downtown development adventures, either through the hiccups in transit-oriented gentrification or privatized governance, but that it does so by uncovering the limits and, thus, provides possible answers, to an emergent and fragile neoliberal urban growth ‘alliance.’ Indeed, as a new development regime stumbles downtown, the L.A. Times is apt to enlist its more than a century of experience garnered from assisting other flimsy regimes find stable footing.