By Cynthia Strathmann, Executive Director
October 22, 2025
The clock is ticking on Los Angeles’s housing production goals, and we are behind schedule. California has mandated the city build 456,643 new units of housing by 2029, and we are just 15% of the way there.
To speed things up, lawmakers have introduced a slew of different policies meant to stimulate housing production. In 2022, Mayor Karen Bass issued Executive Directive 1, which aims to make building cheaper and faster to build by expediting cumbersome permitting and approvals processes. Earlier this year, the Los Angeles City Council approved the Citywide Housing Incentive Program Ordinance, a set of policies which, among other things, allows developers to add density to multifamily housing projects if they set aside a percentage of affordable units. And soon, SB79 will allow developers to build multifamily housing near transit stops in areas that were previously off limits, with some affordability requirements there too.
These policies, while much-needed, have a downside.
Our profit-driven housing system means developers expect a return on their investment. And even with incentives and subsidies, that can be difficult in Los Angeles, where land is very expensive and so many neighborhoods are off limits for multifamily housing construction. This naturally leads developers to look for opportunities to build in areas where land is cheaper and already zoned for apartments—and these are often the neighborhoods where low-income communities of color live. They may even buy up lots where rent-stabilized housing already sits, demolish the existing buildings, and build new ones, a practice that displaces low-income residents and gentrifies neighborhoods even as it adds housing. Take ED 1: as of May 2025, Los Angeles City Planning Department records show the total number of rent-stabilized buildings facing potential demolition for ED 1 projects was 157, totalling 856 units.
Low-income people are the most likely of all tenants to become homeless if they are displaced, so our efforts to build more housing can end up exacerbating one of the key problems we are trying to fix. To curb displacement, L.A. recently implemented the Resident Protection Ordinance (RPO), which clarifies developers’ obligations to replace demolished housing, as well as offer relocation assistance and a “right to return” to tenants. A “right to return” means qualifying low-income tenants can claim a replacement unit in the project that displaced them once it’s built. But these projects often take years to complete, and by then a household may have settled somewhere far away, where rents are more affordable, making return difficult. What’s more, many tenants don’t understand their right to return or how to exercise it. In 2024, 371 replacement determinations for occupied rent-stabilized units were filed, but only 183 tenants completed the necessary paperwork, and 51 of those did not qualify.
Los Angeles needs a better way to incentivize affordable housing while ensuring low-income renters aren’t displaced by new development. We should look at the way other cities in the U.S., including Portland and San Francisco, have solved this problem by instituting robust local preference programs. As we detail in our Local Preference Policy Framework for Los Angeles report, instituted in tandem with a priority occupancy program, which the city is already considering, this would offer more flexibility than the right to return, giving renters more options for staying in Los Angeles when their rent-stabilized buildings are demolished.
Under a local preference program, low-income tenants displaced by new development would have priority access to a subset of affordable units in nearby nonprofit, streamlined, or inclusionary developments. This means qualifying tenants could opt for an equivalent unit at an equivalent rent in their same neighborhood, even if it isn’t in the exact same location as their demolished unit. A priority occupancy program would reserve an additional subset of units in these buildings for low-income tenants displaced by new development anywhere in Los Angeles.
Working together, these programs give tenants a choice: wait for the right to return to the development that displaced you, or move to an equivalent unit in your neighborhood or elsewhere in the city as they become available. More options increases the likelihood these tenants will find alternative affordable housing quickly and remain in Los Angeles.
These programs could extend to renters displaced by large-scale historical projects that disproportionately impacted low-income communities or communities of color, such as Dodger Stadium, local freeways, and LA Metro infrastructure. They could also include descendants of households that were subject to redlining as delineated in the 1939 Home Owners Loan Corporation map. And, if there aren’t enough applicants within the designated geographic area to fill all the set-aside local preference program units, units could also be allocated to renters who work in Los Angeles, lessening their commute and easing overall traffic congestion.
Critics of local preference policies point out that they risk perpetuating segregation caused by redlining or other racist housing practices. But by allocating just a small subset of set-asides—around 15%—for neighborhood preference, and by adding a priority occupancy program to allow displaced renters to live anywhere within city limits, that problem could be avoided. (In 2024, the Los Angeles Housing Department was directed to develop a priority occupancy policy, although that report back is still forthcoming.)
We need new housing, but it should not come at the expense of our low-income neighbors and neighborhoods. By implementing local preference and priority occupancy programs, Los Angeles can ensure new developments are fixing a problem even as they’re creating it, and that housing is being built for those who need it the most.
To read more about our recommendations for a local preference policy for Los Angeles, click here.
